AIBU to think Child Maintenance is fair?

[R2G]

Just that. Does anyone have any opposite views? Anyone feel they ask to much? Etc

Specifically I mean the child maintenance agency and what they deem to be statutory minimum

Is there anyone who has to pay it or from the other side thinks a partner has to pay too much or does everyone think it's right.

I think it’s crap for everyone. It’s not enough to actually raise a child on, or 50% of the costs but it’s wnough to seriously hinder the standard of living of the person paying. Crap for all really.

Of course it's not fair.

I read the average payment was about £30 a week. It certainly costs more than £60 a week to raise a child when you take into account -

• living in a larger house than if you had no kids
• gas, electricity, water
• food
• toys and games
• clothes and shoes
• school uniform
• school trips
• days out
• activities

The list is endless. Paying a paltry minimum is not fair

I think it varies in every case. My ex is quite a high earner and I get more than I have worked out is 50% of the extra it costs me in bills. But I know many are not that lucky. I don't think he pays too much though as he decided to have no contact with DD so I use the extra to buy her extra xmas/birthday presents and pay for activities etc

I'm not sure it's "fair." I applied on January the 26.th and won't get a payment till April? How the heck is that fair! And even then it's only going to be £6 for 4 kids, yeh very fair.

Hmm...yes the £60 a month I get for DD(11) goes really far

Goady goady goady

Personally, I think a man should have the right to "financially abort" - i.e. absolve all financial responsibility for the child in return for giving up all custodial/parental rights.

I don't think it's fair that the woman gets to decide whether she becomes a parent, but the man doesn't get a say in taking on that financial obligation.

Little miss rain - what you are suggesting is awful when you consider that there is a child walking around who has been “financially aborted”. It would be an awful thing to do and certainly shouldn’t be any part of our legal system.

Personally, I think a man should have the right to "financially abort" - i.e. absolve all financial responsibility for the child in return for giving up all custodial/parental rights.

Jesus Christ. I despair.

I don't think it's fair that the woman gets to decide whether she becomes a parent, but the man doesn't get a say in taking on that financial obligation.

Of course he had a say in conceiving a child. Unless his sperm was somehow stolen without his knowledge.

Personally, I think a man should have the right to "financially abort" - i.e. absolve all financial responsibility for the child in return for giving up all custodial/parental rights.

Personally I think anyone who is stupid and/or venal enough to think this should be banned from having children.

why not? people can give their kids up for adoption and they don't pay

They are a joke. My partner pays over £500pm as it was calculated when he was earning alot more. It will not drop below this as they said his wage has to drop below 25% to be reassessed. We just had oyr first child together and it dropped by less than £60pm... our child is essentially getting less than his first.

Of course he had a say in conceiving a child. Unless his sperm was somehow stolen without his knowledge.

People don't make the same argument when arguing against anti-abortion fanatics.

In that debate, people argue - and I agree - that a woman does not have to accept the chance of becoming a parent simply because she has sex.

As a feminist, I believe in equal rights. If women can abort, men should be able to do so financially too.

Obviously, a man should only be able to financially abort before the baby is born - as long as he was made aware of its existence at that time.

And once he'd chosen to be a part of the child's life, he would not be able to reverse that decision and waive financial responsibility if he changed his mind when he had more kids.

Look, I am as socially liberal as they come, but there's a clear double standard for men and women here.

If women can choose not to become a parent post-conception, men should also be able to choose that.

I am of course not going to support forced abortions, so "financial abortions" are the only solution.

I think it's unfair on whomever is paying at times (not always the Mother!). If said person is a high earner and has lots of bills or debts themselves it can make life really difficult for them.
I think it could also be a little more personal - based on days the child is with each parent not just nights. And consideration could be taken to the working persons responsibilities like paying high rent/mortgage and more.

I also feel there's a truth in what you're saying, the man doesn't always get a decision in if this little life is made. I too believe that both parents should get to make a decision about if want to be a part of the child's life, but then of course that decision must be respected throughout the child's life.

our child is essentially getting less than his first.

Unless your Dp is paying over 50% of his wages, that's not true.

@cocopopo Your DP should have tried to improve his financial situation before he committed to having more children, kids don't reduce in cost because you have more of them, the NRPs costs haven't magically decreased because you decided to have a baby.

The right for a woman to abort is about bodily autonomy.

But different for a man because you know he isn’t actually carrying the child inside of him.

*The right for a woman to abort is about bodily autonomy.

But different for a man because you know he isn’t actually carrying the child inside of him.*

It is partly about bodily autonomy, but it's also about your right to choose that you aren't emotionally/financially ready or able to have a child right now.

@littlemissrain most people know that children are a possible consequence of sex. Men are free to make their decision to "financially contracept" by choosing an alternative.