AIBU to think Child Maintenance is fair?

[R2G]

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

Lots of men get off without paying though, my ex has managed for 7 years so I'm not sure a financial abortion is needed not that he would want one since he won't even let me change my dds surname. However if they was there should be no come back from it. If a woman gives her baby up for adoption she doesn't get to change her mind in a few years so no he shouldnt be allowed to change his mind if that's what the man decides.

Prettylovely

Ok I see notasinglefucktogive, fwiw my ex did actually have another child previous who he did see and pay for, He still continued seeing her after we split but didnt see my two who he had previously been a good Dad to or pay. He in recent years has stopped seeing her too. I dont think you ever really know how awful some people can be until you split with them

I'm sorry your DC went through that, especially the older two who effectively will have lost their father who was previously reliable part of their lives. I agree with you, sometimes you don't know how low someone will go until they don't love you anymore.
My XH had a DS who we saw regularly and he paid for. It was only once I was pregnant that I found out that it was his parents who paid for their GC out of shame for him, as he said he refused to bankroll his XP's social life. All this was unknown to me at the time. His DP were close friends with his XW parents, so I think their paying was a 'keeping up appearances' exercise, as they certainly didn't do the same for my DC when he left us!

It's very simple. You bring a child into this world, yes, you pay for its upkeep.

CM sucks because it's too easy for men to wriggle out of their responsibilities.

The 'financial abortion' idea (cringing at those words) would be impossible to implement in reality. And the only outcome I can imagine is more men refusing to take responsibility for their children, so more kids in poverty, more kids reliant on the state. No thanks.

If men want to protect themselves then I'd advise the double up. Always use a condom. Always check that the women is on additional contraception. Sure, there might be a handful of extremely responsible men who don't want kids who get caught out. But the numbers in reality would be tiny. And fundamentally, their right to have consequence free sex does not trump a woman's right to her own body and a child's right to be supported by their parents.

I find this thread quite unbelievable. For centuries women have had to take responsibility that having sex might lead to a child, even if she was raped. Yet now the CMA might force a man to shoulder some of that burden (not all of it) we need to come up with a financial abortion to give them a way out of it. Really? I think some people live on a different planet.

Well let’s put it in terms of the child itself.

Two parents are to raise the child. Let’s call him Jack.

Parents responsibility to - Share costs, childcare.

Mum does 80% of the childcare. Meaning she has to ensure 80 % of food, 100% clothes, housing, bills, education costs, sundries. Mum has less hours to work.

Jack costs 800 pounds a month.

Dad pays 150 pounds a month, as the CMA has put that as the minimum amount.

So unless Mum or the government put up the difference, 350 pounds, then Jack does not get his needs met.

Is that fair on Jack? Or his Mum?

Who is getting away with doing less than his fair share of raising his own child?

Yet now the CMA might force a man to shoulder some of that burden (not all of it) we need to come up with a financial abortion to give them a way out of it

I know, right. If you think of all the many, many ways women have been and continue to be discriminated against in this world. And this one time something seems slightly unfair to the menz, you have people (women?) falling over themselves to give them a get out clause. Misogyny at its finest.

Thats funny notasinglefucktogive my exs new wife is also in her 40s she actually contacted me a year ago really upset saying what an awful person he is and how she knows that he would never be there for her kids as they were splitting up and I actually asked her why she got with him and had kids with him considering his track record I mean I was very young when I met him and thought the same as you how could someone in their 40s even be interested in having a relationship with someone like him. She was so upset saying how she had fucked her life up with him having two kids with him, Next minute shes back with him, They post on facebook how amazing their love is (missing out the part where he kicks down her door, Strangles her and threatens to beat up her teenager and where she punches him and slashes the tyres on his car) and I have to say I find it such a relief that that isnt me and that isnt my life. My kids have such a stable upbringing and I feel so sorry for their half siblings having to live in that environment.
So weird how some people have such low standards.

Off topic somewhat but I find that the new Child Maintenance Service has reached new lows. It is now a paid for service but the standard of customer/service user care is abysmal. The staff are dreadful and I would go so far to say that some are ill trained bullies. There are some of course who have expressed their own frustration to me. They say they are not an investigative service, well fair enough, but why do they then have a financial investigation unit.

I am a gp carer and the father of one of my gs's has a new well paid job earning between £750-£900 per week. This represents a 25% upturn in his salary. However when I informed CMS they wanted to know exactly how I knew. If you cannot provide definitive proof (how) then they are extremely reluctant to check. Basically they want to salary check once a year so you can be receiving £30 per week against a nrp with a salary like this to avoid extra work for them.

The letter I queried from them said the following "child maintenance will remain the same......because Mr.....has provided proof his salary has not changed".

When queried this was not true. He simply failed to respond so they closed the case. CMS said letter was not misleading because it was a standard letter. I actually decided to accept I was wrong but something made me call up. I was told I could not query it or complain because they had followed due process. Again, this was not true.

The worker talked over me so I could not even express myself. Always, always check what they tell you because the no 1 concern about the service are the "misleading" letters sent out. This is a polite way of describing it. I just give up.

They are really rubbish elsiemc, I had to pay to apply and got told that they WILL get the maintenance from him there was no doubt about that, the lady told me this new service wouldnt give him a choice he had to pay. Years later and nope no payment. It was exhausting I gave up not worth the stress of fighting, I spent more in phonecalls than what I received in maintenance for my children. Totally ridiculous.

Bananasinpyjamas11

You are over simplifying the situation. £150 a month would mean Jacks Dad earns less than £300 a week.

£36 cms payment
£100 rent
£50 bills
£50 food
£50 work travel/petrol costs.

Yes it is shitty for Jack but His parents are not together. FWIW none of my children have cost me £800 a month ever - does Jack have private schooling?

My point being if you are including housing costs as part of Jacks £800 then the CMS have to consider the NRP housing costs also.

Been thinking about this thread and had a great idea how to make CMS fair.

How about instead of saying the man must pay £x amount each month, we say the non resident parent pays £x a month to support the child they created? Does that sound fairer to the poor menz?

So if they want to avoid paying a % of their salary each month they could be the resident parent. Now obviously the resident parent is usually the one who stays at home for 6 to 12 months when the baby is born so they need to do that. Then sort and pay for child care. Take time off work when the chid is sick. Go part time. Do all the shit jobs like swimming lessons. Get up in the night when they are ill. And make sure the housework is done. Healthy meals cooked. Make sure the poor womanz out at work 39 hours a week gets her precious down time and do her hobby and fuck off all day saturday to watch the football etc.

Of course the poor manz career will suffer. But that's ok cos now he has the huse until the child is 18 at least. He shouldn't worry about his pension or savings because he has been getting the child benefit. And he should be grateful how fair the system is cos the womanz will now grudgingly pay 15% of her net income over to him to pay her share of the cost of raising the child.

Making child maintenance apply to any nrp whether they are the mother or father will make it completely fair. Obviously.

If you think of all the many, many ways women have been and continue to be discriminated against in this world. And this one time something seems slightly unfair to the menz, you have people (women?) falling over themselves to give them a get out clause. Misogyny at its finest.

Yep. Unfortunately it's rife. Women have had their rights taken and trampled on for centuries, but the minute something seems even slightly unfair on men (even if it is a biological reality), people try and come up with a way to make things 'fair' again, usually at the expense of women. So tiresome.

Unfair in my opinion. My friend earns £50,000+ a year and her DP earns more yet her ex would have to pay her £200 out of his £26,000 wage when he is tasing his first two DDs single handedly.

She doesn't take the money but her situation has made me very uneasy of the whole child maintenance issue

Also if a woman stops a man seeing a kid for no damn reason and he still had to pay is beyond stupid.

Some women don't get enough, some men are arseholes and avoid financial responsibility altogether.

It's not fair for one rule to fit all A's every situation is so different

Lils888 Are the dds her children?

littlemissrain

So a man who:

Rapes a woman and she conceives a child
Forces a woman into having sex (eg coercive sexual control in marriage)
Happy couple who wanted a babyvthen he runs off just before the abortion term limit and say ‘nah, not paying. Abort or I will.’

Should be able to walk away with no responsibility for the child he helped to create?

What you propose has No benefit to the child, no benefit to the mother and only benefit to the father. Child maintenance is not for the mother, it’s for the child. What you propose would lead to countless children suffering.

Men’s ability to not conceive a child exists. By taking appropriate precautions. That’s the point they manage the risk at. The women, by comparison faces risks throughout pregnancy and birth. What you suggest further entrenches the risk skew.

Vanishingly few men are forced into heterosexual sex - countless women are, with concomitant risk of pregnancy. What you suggest increases the risk to women and the children they may conceive alone.

What you are promoting is illogical, and would lead to an ever bigger power differential between men and women. It’s pretty grotesque to be honest.

Men’s point of control over where their sperm goes is at the point of emission. It’s fully controllable for any man who doesn’t want a child.

frouby actually there are plenty of NRP out there that would love to have more access to their own children, or indeed take on the role of RP.

The whole issue with the CMS is that one Size does not fit all, so you're left with alot of unhappy people...

No he's widowed from a previous marriage. Their child is the result of a casual relationship so it's all a little iffy.

Paying her as well as his and his debts from the previous marriage, his mortgage, childcare etc would leave him in the minus figures each month.

Him and his DDs already have a very financially hard life, if the other woman if earning so much more it doesn't sit well with me to take from the other children.

I think America has a system I agree with a bit more, I'm sure they take both parents financial situations into account.

lemon there are plenty of nrps who want more access. But the family courts generally decide based in the best interests of the child. It's not pay per view.

And the nrp usually gets the level of contact awarded on who is the primary carer. If the father had been the primary carer they usually look to continue with that.

The reality is it's usually the mother who is primary carer and all the sacrifices that entails. So the mother tends to have the RP status. Tho 50/50 arrangements do happen.

I resented paying it. My EX quit job when we split because didn't want to pay me cm. 5 years later DS moved in with him and almost immediately I received a letter from cms wanting my salary details. I immediately put a claim in for DD but only ever got £20 per month from his benefits while I paid just under £150 per month. I still had DS over for meals, some nights and always took him on family holidays. The whole situation just wound me up as he CHOSE not to work.

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

Millions. Not just single parents either, plenty in couples done either. It's seem as the norm for many nowadays to get away with doing as little as possible to gain the maximum in benefits.

We need a return to the days when it was shameful to not support any child or children you choose to have. So many posts moaning about having to pay child support, step mums wanting to know how much less their partner will have to pay the ex if they have a new family, parents stating they can't work as they have a child or doing the bare minimum hours as surely they can't be expected to do more etc.

Leave your dc struggling" but surely that is partly the mothers responsibility too?

There is so much shit in this, it is hard to know where to start. But surely, at its most basic, it is not hard to understand that any child brought up in a household with one parent is likely to be at a disadvantage co pared with a child brought up in a household with two parents.

Your assumption that mothers don’t take responsibility is vile. I take responsibility for the upbringing of my children every single fucking relentless day. And that’s before, after and during the times I am at work.

Leave your dc struggling" but surely that is partly the mothers responsibility too?

I doubt there are any RP only spending 16% (or whatever CM minimum is) on bringing up the children!

I would wager it is more like 100% of their monthly income!!

She doesn't take the money but her situation has made me very uneasy of the whole child maintenance issue

Yeah, right. No man should ever have to pay maintenance if the ex earns more than him. And particularly when an ex has a well off new partner, the father should absolutely be absolved of his financial responsibility towards his children.

It doesn’t matter how little an NRP earns in comparison with the PWC, they absolutely still have a responsibility to financially support their children.