AIBU to think how men have got away with this for far to long

[Alex50]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-53064741

Why don’t they pay for their children and think it’s ok?

I would bet if failure to pay CMS led to a CCJ and accruing of bad debt most deadbeat parents would find the money

If women can actually abort the unborn babies, thus ending a potential life, or give up a baby for adoption, why shouldn't men have the right to at least 'divorce themselves' from the child, and shake off all responsibility?

^

This is absolutely shocking, it really is

If men had babies there would be abortion clinics everywhere, they would be like supermarkets, the human race cease to exist. Certain men judge women for having abortions, yet they are complete hypocrites.

Most Women don’t give their children up for adoption unless they really don’t have a choice, it’s because they care about the little human they have created. Some men seem to be able to walk away from their children without a second thought.

Obviously they'll withhold support

So they’ll make their children suffer because they’re not getting their own way? What fine, upstanding men these guys are

And yes, the number of women giving up children voluntarily for adoption is tiny compared to the amount of men not paying CS.

I think theres a trend on mn of assuming this is a bid to avoid paying maintenance but of course it cant be, because if you have the children half the time, you are paying a fair share.
It is not the case. My first custody order was 50/50, but I ended up liable paying for all childcare (a figure close to three grand at the time), just to be able to return to work after mat leave.
Because custody works on the number of overnights, but many expenses are incurred during daytime, when it is "mummy time".

There's no way that SS would put a child on the adoption route if they had a father who was suitable and wanted to parent them. Adoption is for when both parents want to relinquish.

If women can actually abort the unborn babies, thus ending a potential life, or give up a baby for adoption, why shouldn't men have the right to at least 'divorce themselves' from the child, and shake off all responsibility?
I am from a country where exactly this scenario is legal (any parent can voluntarily individually abandon their parental responsibilities, if both do - the child goes into care and is free for adoption). The scenario where men go down this route is virtually unheard of, for some reason they just prefer to disappear.
Non-payment of child support there can also lead to parental rights being revoked, by the way.

Apart from dads divorcing their DC being one of the most stupid ideas ever, presumably it would involve some sort of legal process, and presumably that would cost the divorcing parent? As if these lazy deadbeat scumbags would bother with that when they can just otherwise walk away with no consequences.

I actually wish I could just have DS’s dad removed from his birth certificate and stripped of PR, it would make my life a whole lot easier, but of course I can’t do that, despite the fact that he might as well not even exist considering the amount of support he gives DS. He doesn’t even know or care whether DS is still alive, and he’s actually blocked my number on his phone, funnily enough because I had the gall to ask him for some maintenance, so his evil bitch of an XW, me, who won’t let him see his kid, couldn’t even contact him about DS even if she wanted to. Of course the reason he doesn’t see DS is because he emotionally ad violently abuses his son and he’s an alcoholic, but it’s still all my fault, obviously. He was told by SS he could organise supervised access with certain conditions, or he could apply to court if he wants more, but that involves time, money and effort, but they are exactly the things he isn’t prepared to give.

haha we had a double whammy

I always paid slightly more than CMS to my ex, for our 2DC

OP's ex never paid a penny toward his 2 DC (other than occasional & unnecessary extravagances)

My close friends ex is one of those self employed fiddlers who pays no tax and about a tenner a month for three kids. Lives in a massive rented cash-paid house and has a fancy car. His argument is that because he buys the kids designer clothes he doesn’t need to pay. Well the tables have turned due to the pandemic - you don’t get government help for money you don’t earn, so he has got hardly anything in the way of corona pay outs and his business is in the shit. I hope it goes under and he has to work somewhere proper and pay what he should be paying. Karma is an absolute bitch.

@firstmentat exactly. If dad has the kids Thursday Friday overnights he’s only feeding them their tea two nights and two breakfast. Mum time gets the rest and ends up paying more in food, after school clubs etc

Because a child’s right to support from their parents and a woman’s right over what happens to her body both trump a man’s right to a consequence-free shag
The issue is one is expected to fork out his full responsibility for a decision he had no choice over (to keep the baby) but there is no such responsibity on the other party, ie. mum has no expectation to be financially responsible for the child and made to work to support them.

I do agree that a man should have aright to bail out when he insists on an abortion and it is refused. The decision to keep a pregnancy should also consider whether the woman is able to finance them knowing already at this point that the sperm donor doesn't want that pregnancy.

There are quite a number of reasons why men don't pay and the majority are probably unreasonable, but there are cases where I can understand why. Women can be incredibly manipulative when they've set their mind up that they want a hold at all cost.

one is expected to fork out his full responsibility for a decision he had no choice over (to keep the baby)

Let him focus on the decision he has full choice over - having sex.

Sex has consequences. He doesn’t get a get out of jail free card. Sorry.

The woman is and will always be much more vulnerable to the consequences of sex, regardless of what she decides to do re any pregnancy. Yes she can choose to abort, but that has physical and psychological consequences that the man doesn’t have to deal with.

I do agree that a man should have aright to bail out when he insists on an abortion and it is refused. The decision to keep a pregnancy should also consider whether the woman is able to finance them knowing already at this point that the sperm donor doesn't want that pregnancy.

This is an appalling thought frankly.

So the man gets to pressurise the woman, when she’s making a decision about her own body and future dependent, by waving the money card?

So that society protects his right to consequence-free sex?

Disgusting really.

I do agree that a man should have aright to bail out when he insists on an abortion and it is refused. The decision to keep a pregnancy should also consider whether the woman is able to finance them knowing already at this point that the sperm donor doesn't want that pregnancy
People need to accept that having sex is not risk free. Effective contraception has allowed us to believe that it is, but it's not and never has been. No man has the right to insist that his partner aborts - her body, not his - and it's just part of the initial risk that he has to suck it up if an unwanted pregnancy happens. I appreciate it may not be what he wanted and that's harsh, but it's clear in the initial risks he was taking.
That's not the biggest part of deadbeat dads though - most of them are Dads who actually wanted their kids initially but changed their minds when the relationship broke up, and they have no place whatsoever thinking that means they don't have to pay.

My close friends ex is one of those self employed fiddlers who pays no tax and about a tenner a month for three kids

You what I said before about enabling ?

Call me judgemental, I I wouldn't want to be close friends with a sort of person like that.

If deadbeat dads got the same treatment from society as paedophiles, I suspect there would be far fewer.

I wouldn't want to be close friends with a sort of person like that.

I don’t think she is friends with the fiddling ex.

What about mums who play the controlling card?

What is a deadbeat dad? Ive read on here people complaining that they only getting the minimum from CMS and these fathers are also deadbeat as children cost more forgetting that the dad has to pay for another home as well but mothers on here would rather see them homeless.

Child maintenance is always going to be contentious as one parent will always want more that they receive.

Maybe the bigger issue is that when parents split up they noth need to grow up and stop weaponising the children. Dads threatening not to pay, mothers threatening not to allow children to see dad unless she gets what she wants.

The issue is one is expected to fork out his full responsibility for a decision he had no choice over (to keep the baby) but there is no such responsibity on the other party, ie. mum has no expectation to be financially responsible for the child and made to work to support them.

Again, this is a false equivalence. Women have the right to abort because of their right to bodily autonomy - men have exactly the same right. It just doesn't come into play in this instance because we're talking about something happening to the woman's body. Both parents have a responsibility to provide for an existing child - I can assure you that if the mother doesn't feed or clothe the child she will face the consequences.

I do agree that a man should have aright to bail out when he insists on an abortion and it is refused. The decision to keep a pregnancy should also consider whether the woman is able to finance them knowing already at this point that the sperm donor doesn't want that pregnancy.

But why? He can't insist on an abortion because it is a medical procedure happening to someone else. Who should pay his part for his child? The government? Because he doesn't want to?

There are quite a number of reasons why men don't pay and the majority are probably unreasonable, but there are cases where I can understand why. Women can be incredibly manipulative when they've set their mind up that they want a hold at all cost.

Humour me... what would you consider an understandable reason?

Let him focus on the decision he has full choice over - having sex
As does she. It doesn't put women in a more vulnerable position but one of control.

Should people who are not wanting a child at a particular time accept to never sex? Because condoms fail too. Should we go back to marriage before sex?

A woman should take responsibility too and maybe accept that if she falls pregnant by accident or purposely when her sex partner doesn't want a child, she might need to resort to an abortion even if it's not what she fully wants or to take full financial responsibity.

Humour me... what would you consider an understandable reason?
The one when the woman lie about being on birth control pill or being infertile, tell her sex partner that she's fine with abortions if she ever got pregnant by accident, but does everything to fall pregnant and then refuse of course an abortion.

Then yes, she certainly has a moral duty to take full financial responsibity.

The one when the woman lie about being on birth control pill or being infertile, tell her sex partner that she's fine with abortions if she ever got pregnant by accident, but does everything to fall pregnant and then refuse of course an abortion.

It's a terrible idea to ever rely on anyone else for your contraception. If you don't want to have a child then you need to sort yourself out. Accidents happen, but both parents should be responsible for a resulting child.

I think policy-wise, we should prioritise children being adequately provided for over men being able to have consequence-free sex.

I don’t think she is friends with the fiddling ex.

No. But someone is. I'd wager a pound to a penny that through all the stories listed here, the deadbeat dads have a nice circle of supportive mates who are effectively enabling and perpetuating this behaviour.

I have a relative that likes in a very conservative part of the US. One of my hobbies is disability rights, and I asked them how they dealt with people who abused disabled parking spaces. There was a long think, then a comment that they had no idea because it never happened. When I said "huh" they just said that anyone who had been caught doing that would probably have to leave town. It would not go down well.

Now I'm not suggesting we go for Alabama-on-the-Wold, or Mississippi Dunney, but if society took a more dim view of men who don't take their parental responsibilities seriously, there probably wouldn't be a need for this thread.

Once again, call me judgemental, but if a man cannot see his way to supporting the most precious thing in the world - a human life - then I'm not really sure it's a great advert for any job he claims he can do is it ? Trust you with a job in my company ? What's that ? You'll treat it like it's one of your own kids ? Wow, I would hope for something better.

But, again, that's me being old. Hot. Bothered, and totally out of step with reality.

*It's a terrible idea to ever rely on anyone else for your contraception. If you don't want to have a child then you need to sort yourself out. Accidents happen, but both parents should be responsible for a resulting child"
And that's my point. At the moment, the woman has no responsibility because she has full reins to decide on behalf on her sex partner. She has the freedom and all the options.

As said, the only way men can fully protect themselves is to not have sex until he knows he wants a child, but a bit tough to know you want to have a committed relationship and family with someone without finding out if you are sexually compatible first.