AIBU to think Child Maintenance is fair?

[R2G]

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

Depends on your circumstances and which side of the fence you're on.

Is it fair a man who knowingly and willingly agreed to have children has the ability to walk away and pay nothing or very little just because he either is no longer with the mother or simply doesn't want financial responsibility? No of course it isn't.

Is it fair a man can hide his earnings so he pays nothing or the bear minimum whilst he moves on and maintains a good standard of living but his ex and children struggle? No of course it isn;t

But, on the flip side, I know two women who went ahead and got pregnant despite their partners telling them they weren't ready to have children, both women lied about using contraception, both relationships ended and both women took their ex partners for financial support. Ultimately these men will have to pay for children they did not knowingly or willingly agree to conceive and in fact were lied to and reassured contraception was being used by the women, is that fair? No it isn't.

I'm flabbergasted that people think the realities of biology (men can't abort a child, women can), means that men should have the opportunity to abandon an actual, living, existing child.

Sorry, but if men don't want to accept what is biological reality, then they need to take responsibility for their own reproductive health and ensure they cannot have children.

What an absolutely ridiculous comparison to make.

@R2G
I actually completely misinterpreted what you were saying. I thought you were posting as if you were that ratbag ex saying you think it’s fair for you to get a pittance. Hence my comment. Anyway glad we are on the same page. Sorry to derail.

Idont I presume that is directed at me? No it isn't a ridiculous comparison to make.

If you're DP/DH assures you he has 'taken care/responsibility' of something do you doubt him? Do you check up on him? Or having had lengthy conversations where you've both 'agreed' to do something do you accept that you're both being honest with each other?

I’m intrigued to know how a woman can force a man to have sex and inpregnate her against his will . Can someone explain that to me please?

And while you are at it I’d like to know how you can run a teenager for the cost of bus fares and school lunches ? Because I have three and they cost a bloody fortune .

Ours have a bedroom each, eat like horses, do lots of sports and hobbies, have phones, tablet, laptops , want branded clothes and trainers and grow out then all the time, require a full time taxi driver, spend ages in the shower, want to come on holiday with us, go on school trips etc.

Where do you get these teens who sleep on the kitchen floor and eat nothing but school dinners and a fivers worth of food a week ( I’m gueesing that’s porridge for breakfast and dinner ). I’m being ripped off.

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.

Soontobeamrs well- Plenty of women earn as much, or more, than their partners, particularly on MN.

School fees are over £1k per month per child.
Some families spend £500 a month on music/extra-curricular.
Some children have therapies which cost hundreds per month.
Some families spend over £1k pcm per child, just on childcare.

It's ridiculous to make a blanket statement like that. For some families it costs far more than £1k a month to raise their child/children.

There are flaws in it from both sides and, without an ability to look at every case individually (clearly impractical), it will never be perfect.

A friend of ours is a fairly high earner but his ex left him with enormous debts run up on credit cards in joint names then argued she could not work so was not liable to pay them off. She got CM from him and from her previous ex for an older child (both have always been responsible and paid in full) plus claimed every benefit she was allowed. Between paying everything he owed and the debts, she had far more disposable income than he had yet still bad-mouthed him to all and sundry that she thought she should have had more

@LifeBeginsAtGin

but I hate the feminist argument that 'if he has sex he commits'.

Why? Even with contraception, even with multiple types of contraception, pregnancy can happen. If it does the woman can't just walk away. She has to choose to either continue the pregnancy with all the risks that entails or to have an abortion, which I'm sure is not pleasant, even if it is a relief, and which isn't completely risk free either (though lower risk than continuing the pregnancy).

So yes, she gets to make a 'last minute' choice, but she carries all the physical risk of her choice at as well.

If a man can't cope with that he shouldn't be having sex. If he absolutely does not want to be a father he needs to think very carefully about sex and accept that there is always a risk.

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.

Terrible idea. You'd basically be giving men a free pass to have sex without taking responsibility for themselves. Why would they need to when they can just 'financially abort' any potential child.

If you have sex, even with contraception there's always a chance of a baby happening. Everyone knows this, it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

If a man is really against fathering a child, then don't have sex, it's not a god-given right like many seem to believe.

No its not.

You are assessed on your tax return - which his fine. But if you income for the current year is lower you can only get a reduction in maintenance payment if its 25% lower.

I wont let my DH do over time because of that. using nice round figures.....

If his taxable income is 50K and he does 10K overtime then next year he is assessed at 16% of 60K. However if that overtime ceases to exist and he's on basic wages he still has to pay 16% of 60K because 10k IS NOT 25% OF 60k.

We don't need his overtime so I don't let him do it.

I might be more amenable to it if his ex wife actually complied with the custody order and let him see his kids but she won't. Always has an excuse. We can only enforce it by getting the police involved (not good for the kids) or going back to court which is more money and she just ignores it.

If we could withhold the payment, I will guarantee she would allow him to see the kids. Its the only weapon she would respond to.

I might be more amenable to it if his ex wife actually complied with the custody order and let him see his kids but she won't.

Unfortunately for you children aren't pay-per-view. But have you actually chosen to have a lower income just so you can avoid giving his children a tiny bit more than you absolutely have to?

sophia quite easily. I already bought food before he moved in so now I buy slightly more.

My mortgage water council tax childcare bill didnt increase. For arguments sake let's say an extra tenner a month gas and electric

He plays rugby which costs us about £20 a year and the kit on top but we've always bought all his clothes anyway.

They don't have to cost you much.

Oh and we pay £25 a month for his phone but again we paid this anyway.

Oh and he's always had his own bedroom so no change there. He has games consoles and branded clothes but I'm not buying them every week.

He has a bus pass so he gets the bus. No taxi service in my house.

Oh and were not on a water meter so It doesnt matter to me how long he spends in the shower.

Didn't realize this was a game of my teenager costs more than yours.

Maybe mine is abnormal?

Genuine question. Why is it that men have no choice but to pay as it's their responsibility. Yet women have the choice to have the child adopted an abstain all responsibility. Why is that ok?

I wont let my DH do over time because of that.

I genuinely think this is the meanest thing I've ever read on MN.

I dont believe they have no choice my ex pays nothing for my children. Zero.
Even when he was working.
Now he gets his wife to work so he can avoid paying whilst hes a stay at home dad to his new kids. He doesnt feel he should pay as he has new kids now and didn't want mine anymore (not that he bothered anyway)
No I dont think thats fair.

So, if his overtime is cancelled and not available, should he still be paying child support out of money he doesn't earn anymore - effectively meaning I'm paying for it?

We don't need his income anyway, I earn enough for the both of us.

As I said, if she'd let him see the kids so he's not crying every times its one of their birthdays, I might feel differently.

Yet women have the choice to have the child adopted an abstain all responsibility

I used to work closely with social care, but have never yet met a woman that had her child adopted by choice, not once. They were all forced into it by circumstances- either a care order, or their partner or parents pressurising them.

The numbers of women that genuinely, willingly relinquish their children must be absolutely tiny.

The numbers of women that genuinely, willingly relinquish their children must be absolutely tiny.

But they have the choice, men do not.

Even if a child was not planned there is duty on Parents to take care and provide till they are 18

Unless they choose to have the baby adopted. Then all moral and financial responsibility is absolved forever.
People don't judge parents who don't feel emotionally, financially or socially ready to raise a child and so choose to give them up. They just reserve the judgement for unready fathers who feel the exact same way as the adoptive parents do!
Adoptive parents don't feel ready for a baby- met with understanding.
But if he didn't feel ready for a baby? "Should have worn a condom, dickhead!"

I've never heard anyone say of people looking to take the adoption route, "You must raise this baby, you can't give them away! If you didn't want one, you shouldn't have had unprotected sex".

Both don't feel ready for a baby. So what's the difference, really?

women don't just have this choice!

Men do and plenty make use of it by refusing contact with their children and paying zero maintainance!

yes they do- there are people on this thread saying the father of their child pays nothing. There are hundreds of threads on MN moaning that the father of their child has fucked off out of their children's lives.

I am guessing you're either an absent father, or your partner has a previous family?

I think people do judge women who give children up for adoption. They shouldn't, but they do. Same as how they judge women for having an abortion. Or for not having an abortion and then bringing a child into a life of poverty.

Because women are judged, and deemed to be doing the wrong thing, no matter what they do.

And I'm not saying children are PPV - just that if all else has failed, withholding maintenance would focus his ex's mind a little.

Both don't feel ready for a baby. So what's the difference, really?

You talk about this entirely as if the child is just a thing, rather than a person with its own rights. The difference is that parents giving up a child for adoption have taken measures to ensure that that child will be fully and adequately cared for. That's why it's ok to place a child with social services, not ok to sell one, or to put it in a bin.

Non-resident parents who don't pay child maintenance haven't made alternative arrangements for the child, they've just abandoned their own responsibilities and fucked off without looking back. That's more like putting a baby in a bin than putting it up for adoption.

If you started trying to think about this from the perspective of what's best for the child rather than for either of the adults involved, you might see why the idea of a 'financial abortion' is a ridiculous one.