AIBU to think Child Maintenance is fair?

[R2G]

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

*for the state

The child has no contact with the father now, the mother is on benefits as the father is at university and it's all a bloody mess. Surely he should have some rights?

what about the child's rights? Are they ignored because one or other of the parents would rather not be a parent?

‘On the face of it it can seem unfair for a man to pay for a child he tried to prevent being conceived and there was birth control failure.’

That’s the risk you take when you have sex though? No contraceptive is 100%. Women have to deal with consequences of accidental pregnancy (either having an abortion, or raising a child) so men should have to as well.

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

you don't think the child might have an opinion on that?

Ime it doesn't seem to work well for either parent tbh.

Dh just finished paying maintenance for his youngest who is now 18. He began paying £200 pm, his divorce agreement gave two thirds of the sale of the house to his ex and dc. He earned a good deal less than her and I think it's fair to say he really struggled financially - house in a shitty area, barely able to afford days out when his dc stayed, poor relation in terms of the presents he was able to afford for them etc.

But as a working mother, I expect that his contribution (which he increased in line with his wages over the years) didn't even cover 50% of their childcare bills. I do wonder how RPs are able to continue to work after divorce, given childcare costs, if their ex is not a high earner.

I also think that the new partners in the relationship bear a disproportionate responsibility for the stepchildren - on both sides - precisely because child maintenance doesn't work well. I am under no illusions that dh's ex's second husband will have paid considerably more for his stepchildren than dh has over the years, just as since my earnings have overtaken dh's I have been the one to provide for holidays, birthday presents, days out etc. We now have two children together. We did discuss whether it would be fair or feasible to recalculate the maintenance, but we're in a totally different place to when we met - finally financially secure. The difference it would have made to us financially was minimal and we decided the damage it would potentially do to relationships just wasn't worth it. If we weren't as comfortable financially then it would have felt very unfair on our subsequent children too. But then we wouldn't have decided to have dc together of we couldn't afford them.

Dh's ex and her second husband have, generally, been much better off than we have until very recently. But that was the result of their combined earnings.

Child maintenance often isn't fair, on anyone, including subsequent children. But I fail to see how it could be changed to make it fairer.

Incidentally, I wish dh's ex had the same moral responsibility as dh has had the financial responsibility in regards to contact throughout the relationship. We're on good terms now they're older, but it hasn't always been plain sailing (never allowed Christmas day with them, got the dregs of the holiday dates, had to fight every time we wanted to take them to visit his family or keep them longer than his allocated time at weekends etc).

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

This is a great idea. Of course tax payers would also have no responsibility to support the child, because they wouldn’t have parental rights either. They shouldn’t have to pay benefits from children they had no choice in creating.

Naturally many more children would live in poverty but that’s not a problem. We could re open the workhouses. Don’t know who would pay for that though.

Hmm it’s a dilemma.

Am reading this shitshow of a thread in absolute disbelief. So many women queuing up to bash other women, so many excuses and apologies for men failing to perform their basic obligations.

I am always particularly amazed at the women who resent what their partner pays for their first family. You've seen the statistics on second marriages, right? You know how good the odds are that that's going to be you too - and how do you then think you'll feel about wife no. 3 bitching about the money he pays for your children?

Yup, it’s really tough , trying to balance the rights of men to do what they like when they like with no financial consequences.

And the right of children to have a roof over their head, a warm home, food to eat and enough money to participate in society.

Naturally many more children would live in poverty but that’s not a problem. We could re open the workhouses. Don’t know who would pay for that though.

Don't worry! Since we've already decided that the rights of 'financially aborted' children aren't important - certainly not as important as the right of the man who fathered them to have as much money as he wants - then I don't think we need bother educating them, and so could just put them to work? That should make the workhouses self-sufficient - in fact, they could perhaps turn a profit which we could use to hand out free condoms for the poor men who haven't got the wherewithal to buy one. Heaven forbid a man have to spend his beer money on his responsibilities, after all.

Yep, the right of men to ejaculate with abandon must be upheld at all costs. If that forces women to undergo unwanted abortions because they can't manage without maintenance or means that children are forced into poverty it is a small price to pay to ensure that men are never inconvenienced by pregnancy or required to take responsibility for the consequences of sex, it's the woman's problem after all.

What parent wouldn't want to pay for their child's upkeep?

My daughters dad doesn't pay a penny for her, I cancelled CSA years ago as he is NC (his choice, though I'm glad). I'd like to keep it this way, she gets all she needs from me.

I don't agree a father should be paying the mother £500, I highly doubt the mother is matching that. It doesn't cost £1000 a month to raise a child.

Good grief. To the posters banging on about those poor sods who are tricked into becoming a parent... just how many cases of that particular scenario do you think there are?

I would hazard a guess that it's absolutely minute. It's got little to no relevance to the question of whether fathers in general should provide for their children. Of course they should - whether they are in a relationship with the child's mother or not.

If the tiny few who are 'tricked' into having sex that ends in pregnancy (ha ha ha) are hard done by, so be it. Life ain't always fair, and the needs of the majority of children should be met.

This whole financial abortion nonsense for the poor hoodwinked souls is a total straw man argument taking away from the real issue.

Littlemiss a) the vast majority of women who choose to continue an unplanned pregnancy on their own would do so regardless of whether the father contributes financially. It's an emotional decision not a financial one. B) are you really suggesting that it should be legally acceptable for the state to pay the fathers contribution? C) it's not really about contraceptive responsibility, bodily autonomy or anything else. It's about the child's rights.

@twattymctwaterson
What are you talking about??? What is goady about talking about something that affects parents. It's mumsnet.

@mummyoflittledragon
Sorry I've confused you. He has been asked to pay more in relation to his salary rising and thinks it's unfair as they don't take into account the rest of his life commitments.
I am saying that the current system is fair as a minimum, but I was interested in hearing from others who might think it's a struggle from the other side.
I wanted reassurance I suppose that I'm not being unfair making him stick to it.

@mummyoflittledragon
It's wierd when people search through your past posts trying to catch you out.

Oh I seeee. Yes I was really confused. I remembered commenting on an old thread of yours (you have an unusual username, don’t have that good memory usually), which is why I looked it up and posted it. Make the bastard stick to it. Every last penny. He doesn’t sound like a pleasant man.

It may seem weird and I see that you would assume it. However, see my last comment.

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

How on earth would that work? There would need to be a very early cut off point as obviously any woman wanting an abortion if their baby daddy pots out would be getting one ASAP. Any man who was tricked (who I have every sympathy for) would simply not be told about the pregnancy until it’s too late. It’s just one of those things unfortunately.

The majority of men who would choose to opt out will be the ones having unprotected sex because they don’t like condoms.

@cocopopo - your child isn't getting less than his first set of children. Your child is getting the benefit of the remaining 84% of his salary plus £60 that he doesn't pay to his previous children.

If he couldn't afford to have a child with you he should have taken that into consideration and his first children don't start to cost less just because you chose to have a baby.

@mummyoflittledragon
Thank you x

CMS payments are, like a divorce settlements, based on extremely crude analysis of circumstances, so can be very unfair, in one direction or the other.

And that's assuming we have a single idea of what fair means, it gets worse once you allow for different conceptions. (Whenever I've heard a politician use the word "fairness", it's turned out that they mean the exact opposite of what I'd call fair.)

It's usually not fair. There are too many loopholes and the 25% increase/decrease thing is stupid.

Of course it doesn't cover the costs of bringing up a child but its not supposed to. It's not supposed to pay half your mortgage and bills.

My mortgage disnt increase when I had a baby and I dont think gas and electric went up by a noticeable amount either. Water is the same. Food yes a bit more.

Out biggest expenses (other than nursery bill for toddler) are school dinners and bus fare for ss who is 13

Other than that he costs us money for clothes and spends and what an extra 5er on the food bill.

What his mum pays doesn't cover that but the rest is covered by extra cb.

We get 26 a week which is shit yes but at the end of the day he lives with us so he's our responsibility and we used to pay a fortune in maintenance and clothes spends trips etc etc on top so we're prob not any worse off when I think about it. Maybe better off!

DH is a high earner so his CMS calculated payments are high compared to a lot of people's I guess. He then pays more on top of that because his EW is a low earner and her husband doesn't work. Anyone who tries to absolve themselves from financial responsibility for their own children is abhorrent.