To think he should still pay maintenance if he takes a 'career break'

[PIPERHELLO]

Just that really. He's very well paid (six figs) and planning a career break. I am struggling to find a definitive answer online as to whether he can be forced (by court / Child Maintenance service) to continue paying maintenance if he voluntarily leaves his job.

Thanks.

Falling off my chair laughing at @InnerCircle picking me up in proved v proven. Who cares? Not even sure you are right.

Yes I've heard of Occam's razor.

If contact goes through the courts, a 50-50 split is seen as the ideal

Not it’s not, what’s ideal is keeping normality for the kids as much as possible. And that’s usually what happens in the courts.

@InnerCircle

I feel it's time for me to womansplain. Men are provably less agreeable, more prone to violence, more able to inflict violence due to their physiology and therefore, at the extreme (transgressions outside of the law) will make result in them being a significant number of the incarcerated.

1 in 5 women sexually assaulted
1 in 10 raped
1 in 4 affected by DV

All the above almost exclusively at the hands of men...because they can't help it? Is that what you're saying - their "physiology"? What about short men? Do they count?

No way do I buy that you're a woman, no woman hates their own sex this much (and also this kind of rhetoric is only reserved for the dimmest of misogynists). Your type think they're so clever but you're a cookie cutter MRA and we can see you a mile off. But if you're serious about physiology - congratulations on being a reason as to why the above stats are so high, you apologist. "Sorry you were raped love, it's in their DNA".

Most violence is male on male so I'm not sure what that has to do with patriarchy / matriarchy but I thought I'd address your point as it stands

At the risk of embarrassing you, you've said it yourself in that sentence right there. Male on male violence. Men are the problem. I realise now you mistakenly thought patriarchy/matriarchy was about the biggest oppressed group/victims when actually it's about the oppressors - so men. Because both women and men suffer at the hands of the patriarchy. It's men perpetuating the problems. You've said as much yourself.

Also can you explain what in this world systemically disadvantages men? To womansplain - systematically doesn't mean a one-off astronaut, or a woman getting maintenance, or women's only refuge being built. It's means a whole system built around the interests of women whilst also being damaging to men?

The matriarchy / society expects men to do the dangerous and hard work. All the bedungareed want 50:50 sex representation in STEM but are hardly fighting for more women on the front line. Women in the US protested against women getting the vote because it would have meant equal treatment when it came to conscription. Did you know that?

So what if they want more women in STEM but not the forces? Why should men like you dictate what women want to do in their careers? Women can, and do, fight for whatever they want. Did you know that?

Toxic femininity has meant that men are earners and providers and die at work.

Sorry which women have forced men to do hard labour? Considering around d 100 years ago women weren't even allowed to work its hard to believe they now wield such great power that they force men to have "high risk" (but well paid) jobs.

And I think you're wrong - whilst fatal accidents obviously result in a worse outcome than assaults, it's actually female health care workers who suffer the highest rate of physical dangers in the workplace. It only because the number of assaults but the lack of action taken to prevent it happening again. And they get a crappy wage to go with their hard and dangerous work. Did you know that?

I have two issues with this. Firstly, I doubt you have proof of "smartness" and supposed link

You are the one who pointed out that boys do worse at school.

I have no idea what your draconian rant is about "agreeableness" (we ain't in a Jane Austen novel dear) means so can you just explain to me exactly how it's women's fault boys don't do well at school? Remember patriarchy isn't about the disadvantaged - so in this case boys - but about the oppressors. Explain to me how women are systematically oppressing boys at school?

If women were paid less and smarter and better then companies would be clamering to hire them, surely?

Yes, exactly - and why do you think they don't? Because patriarchy. Systems are still imperfect and led by humans after all.

And you would want an instant decrease if the wages dropped

The general consensus is that this can't be helped and yes maintenance does drop. However many men tie themselves in knots and using loopholes to get out of paying a penny. This is not the same as maintaining a job but suffering a loss in wages

Not it’s not, what’s ideal is keeping normality for the kids as much as possible. And that’s usually what happens in the courts

Yes, the courts interest ALWAYS lies with the children, often to the chagrin of a parent. It just so happens that more often than not it's in the child's best interests to be with their mother

With respect that’s tough shit. The OP hasn’t the luxury of time out. You procreate, you financially support your offspring.

If a SAHM was so depressed that she wanted to go and stay with her mum for a while because she couldn't look after the children any more, and leave their father to sort everything out aka finding and paying for childcare etc, would you say tough shit, you procreate, you look after your offspring?

If a SAHM was so depressed that she wanted to go and stay with her mum for a while because she couldn't look after the children any more, and leave their father to sort everything out aka finding and paying for childcare etc, would you say tough shit, you procreate, you look after your offspring?

I’d say it wasn’t always that easy. Again people are giving examples that aren’t comparable - what a couple choose to do/not to/discuss as part of a partnership means nothing in comparison to a NRP making wholesale lifestyle changes that will negatively impact their child.

I say this as a single parent. I’m ill today. I’ve managed to juggle work, but I still have to care for my child. Similar scenario when I broke my leg. It IS tough shit for me, there’s no point railing against the unfairness of it all.

There’s a lot of projecting though, it was only a poster’s suggestion there was any question of mental health issues. What if he is taking a 6 month break to tour America by a Chevy?

I'd say it isn't always that easy

No, it never is that easy when it's the woman having issues, is it?
On the other hand, when men have issues - which the op's husband might be - it sude

On the other hand, when men have issues - which the op's husband might be - it sude

Well yes. As you can clearly see from the rest of my post when you’re a single parent, whether RP or NRP then it might have to be that easy.

I’d say it wasn’t always that easy. Again people are giving examples that aren’t comparable - what a couple choose to do/not to/discuss as part of a partnership means nothing in comparison to a NRP making wholesale lifestyle changes that will negatively impact their child.

If the husband in that situation was against the mum going to stay elsewhere because he didn't want to try and find/pay for childcare, aka the mother wants to make a decision that will negatively impact his life as well as the DC, would you agree with the husband because the mother has a responsibility to parent? Or would you side with the mother?

There’s a lot of projecting though, it was only a poster’s suggestion there was any question of mental health issues. What if he is taking a 6 month break to tour America by a Chevy?

Exactly, we have no idea why he's taken the career break. Which is why I find it strange that you say tough shit, you chose to procreate when you have no idea of the circumstances.

Which is why I find it strange that you say tough shit, you chose to procreate when you have no idea of the circumstances

Because whatever the reason his child has to have a roof and eat.

Argh - posted too soon!

It suddenly becomes very simple - he must pay, no acceptable reason why not. Easy.

The op's ex might be an arse, might be feckless and/or might be a hopeless dad.
Or he might be going through some sort of mh crisis, might have been sacked or made redundant and is too proud to admit it or might be terminally ill.

The point is, too many pps have waded in to criticise, without knowing anything apart from the Op is furious.
That's called having an agenda.

That's called having an agenda

And I said earlier you were incorrect. I have a very decent ex who has made provision for every scenario so whatever happens to him - and obviously I really hope nothing does because he’s a wonderful man - our daughter is fully provided for. Because that’s what you have to do when you have kids, especially in split homes. You have to plan for the “just in case” even more so than a married couple.

(And before we jump on any “agenda” of your own, I have equally made the exact same provisions for him).

Anyway, I’ve found this really interesting, and hope the OP - and indeed everyone having difficulties due to lack of maintenance - manages to sort it out.

I’m taking myself off to bed as I’m ill

Because whatever the reason his child has to have a roof and eat.

If said father is terminally ill would you still tell him tough shit then or would you offer him an ounce of sympathy

Because whatever the reason his child has to have a roof and eat

The child has another parent who cab provide that though. What if the maintenance payer dies then?

I personally dont think you can rely on maintenance and you shouldn't treat it as guaranteed income because anything could happen.

“New partners or RPs have to

Do they? I didn't realise they had to?”

Well their earnings count as household income, so it affects tax credits/universal credits, child benefit and things like student loans... so unless the RP’s new partner isn’t contributing financially there’ll be a shortfall. So yes they’re expected to support pre-existing children and NRP’s new partners aren’t.

When you move in with someone you expect to contribute to the household though dont you?

Children who do not live with you are not part of the household.

Nobody has to support their partners kids. Dont move in!

That's such a daft argument. Anything could happen to the rp too and if nrp has jacked in his job for no good reason and decided obligations to their child is optional, where does it leave the child then?
Telling women not to rely on maintenance is saying that the DC are their responsibility alone and nevermind that someone else also chose to have that child!

where does it leave the child then?

Well either the remaining parent gets a job or they rely on benefits as many people do. Its not that hard to imagine.

No, saying dont rely on maintenance in sensible. Its like saying dont rely on overtime, or bonuses. You know you usually get it, you should get it but its not guaranteed.

Nrps absolutely should pay maintenance but we all know some wont.

It should be utterly socially unacceptable to not pay child support. It's shameful that it isn't and that there are people still willing to date and marry parents who CBA to support their children.

Benefits exist to support families who can't work. If dad was unwell, no one would begrudge a penny. Benefits shouldn't be necessary to pay for kids whose fathers have unilaterally decided to give up work and stop paying. That just shouldn't be an option. The state should pay the rp and the nrp should owe that debt to the state.

Even the most poverty stricken, unwell person is expected to pay tax. CS should be considered equally as important and there should be no getting out of that obligation, even if the state helps out in the short term by covering it until the nrp is in a better position.

It should be utterly socially unacceptable to not pay child support. It's shameful that it isn't and that there are people still willing to date and marry parents who CBA to support their children

Absolutely. The number of women my 'wouldn't give the greedy bitch a penny' ex seems to attract is beyond incomprehensible. But it's basically patriarchy/misogyny at work, isn't it? That maintenance is seen as a 'private, domestic matter', that women are viewed as 'grabbing' and 'greedy' when it comes to divorce, that the value of a woman's contribution - even if she has only ever stopped working during maternity leave - to family life is always seen as financially less than a man's (including when this isn't the case), that we assume all things negative about a 'single mum' including the non-existent 'single parent benefits' that single parents don't receive, that a NRP can work without reproach but a PWC is subject to all sorts of assumption about just how much she really loves her children when they are in childcare all, day everyday but not working or working part-time makes her a lazy bitch who is simply not pulling her weight (and claiming all of those single parent benefits that don't exist).....

What baffles me, however, is that we demand a new male partner moving in with a PWC should take financial responsibility for existing children but consider a female partner of an NRP entirely exempt of any financial responsibility for her partner's children.

Not RTFT but I think if you choose to stop working, you should have to continue to honour your maintenance obligations. You'd still have to pay council tax and other bills, looking after your kids shouldn't be an opt out. If you can't afford it, then you don't give up work! Like for couples who stay together.

If you lose your job, that's different.

Nrps absolutely should pay maintenance but we all know some wont.

And while there is no push from the government to actually encourage/enforce CMS to use the powers they have maintenance simply can’t be relied on.

a female partner of an NRP entirely exempt of any financial responsibility for her partner's children

but, they are. Its not a new partners responsibility to finance someone elses kids, no matter what sex they are.

if you move in with someone with children, you become part of that household. The government sees you as a "family" - if you don't want that, don't move in with someone with children!

if you are living with someone who has children, but doesn't live with them, the government sees you as a couple with no dependants, not a family. You are under no obligation to support children who are not yours, who do not live with you unless you want to.

as for "single parent benefits don't exist" - well not as such no, but I would assume a single parent family would get more in tax credits / universal credits etc than a family with two working parents, this is because the income of 1 person would be lower than the income of 2 people.

I don't think anyone is grabbing or greedy for wanting maintenance, it should be paid. It should be harder to not pay, the loopholes should be sorted out absolutely.

I also agree that its wrong that a woman's contribution to the household isn't appreciated half as much as a mans in a lot of cases.

The thing is, there are some shit men who don't pay maintenance, and they give all non resident dads a bad name, and equally there are a small proportion of women who will happily rinse their ex for whatever they can get, and they give all ex wives / RP's a bad name.

I think in a situation like this one, there should be a solution, a compromise and there certainly should have been more notice. Children do not stop costing money, but equally you cannot guarantee maintenance.