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?

Women having bodily autonomy is sexist
Haha, bodily autonomy but not so autonomous when it comes to finances.

@NYCDreaming, don't confuse anything. My ex wanted both our children. As a matter, it's him who asked about having both of them and he loved and lives them very much.

I am talking here about men who are tricked by women who want a child and go ahead with getting pregnant knowing the guy doesn't want one.

The two scenarios couldn't be more different.

Children shouldn't suffer because if their mother's selfish and entitled choices

In the vast, vast majority of cases they don’t.

The woman stays and provides and the man fucks off.

My ex wanted both our children. As a matter, it's him who asked about having both of them and he loved and lives them very much.

And yet he doesn't pay any maintenance because you think that he would take it out on the kids if you claimed

I am talking here about men who are tricked by women who want a child and go ahead with getting pregnant knowing the guy doesn't want one.

Men should be able to abdicate financial responsibility for their children just in case some mothers get pregnant accidentally on purpose. Fuck the children, let the food banks provide for them so long as it's fairer for the poor man.

Haha, bodily autonomy but not so autonomous when it comes to financees

You’re confusing separate issues.

Finances are to do with providing for the child.

Bodily autonomy means that no one gets to tell a woman what to do with her own uterus.

The man’s right to a consequence less shag doesn’t trump those.

It is odd no party in power seems to have an appetite for reforming the way money is collected from NRP’s as one would assume it would reduce the burden on the state. I imagine it’s partly because children, who suffer most in this, have no political voice.

As an aside it’s really tiresome the way with so many debates on here posters insist on holding women up as paragons of virtue and vilifying men and as has been pointed out double standards are the norm.

I am talking here about men who are tricked by women who want a child and go ahead with getting pregnant knowing the guy doesn't want one.

If the man wears a condom like a responsible adult, he cannot be ‘tricked’ in this way.

This should surely not be news to a grown man?

so many debates on here posters insist on holding women up as paragons of virtue

I don’t see anyone do that. Kindly elaborate.

Haha, bodily autonomy but not so autonomous when it comes to finances

No, because there is a child, and both creators of that child have responsibilities to that child. It doesn't matter if the man thought the woman couldn't get pregnant. It's not about the man. It's about the child.

@dontdisturbmenow

Women having bodily autonomy is sexist Haha, bodily autonomy but not so autonomous when it comes to finances.

Are children supposed to be autonomous financially?

I'm flummoxed by some of the posters on here. It seems that because I got married to someone who then went off with another woman I should flagellate myself for not choosing the right kind of man and seeing that he would do that to me. Stupid me.

I then have absolutely no right to be upset that I am a single parent on the wrong side of 40 with young children 100% of the time, because after all men should be able to choose to abandon their children. I probably deserve it because of my selfish choice to have unprotected sex with my husband. Stupid me.

I have no right to get angry because he paid nothing for 9 months because he'd walked away and I should just accept that. He now is on a DEO and is emotionally traumatised because its so unfair that him and his new GF cant live the life they want to because he has to pay for his children. I need to be more sympathetic to the poor man - its so unfair to him.

50% of the true cost to raise a child is apparently considered to be ridiculous, so therefore as a single mum I will simply have to find 100% of it because dad walked away and its a silly amount to think you can deprive him of because it would be so unfair to him.

Once the arrears are clear and he comes off the DEO his payments will reduce and Ill get £250 per month towards raising two children. Its a lot more than some people get (I am actually grateful for that), but wait - actually because his GF has children that are not his and he lives with her, CMS will allow him to have a discount, because you cant expect him to not contribute towards her children. That wouldn't be fair on him.

No one can honestly believe that a NRP should be able to dodge paying CM surely!!

No I won’t thank you as if you can’t see what I mean there isn’t much point elaborating

It's not about the man

I honestly think this is the crux.

Men just cannot get their heads around a situation where their desires aren’t the priority.

No I won’t thank you as if you can’t see what I mean there isn’t much point elaborating

Wow. What strong debating skillz. I am in awe.

@Serendipity79 - jealousy the ultimate evil. Money only stretches so far.

The guy has bills to pay as well and with more children in the house the bills go up. You women claim the cost of children is expensive but you would also benefit when a new fella moves in. Is it not the same?

Cake and eat it springs to mind.

@formerbabe

she regularly sends them in filthy clothes that don’t fit, pay for all their haircuts as otherwise they would never get done, pay for their phones, and recently just purchased them each a laptop to help with home schooling and fees them the only decent meals they get all week when they are with me

Taking this on face value, she is extremely unusual going by what you say. I don't know any women who don't feed their DC a decent meal or dress them appropriately

I know at least one: my cousin's ex. The kids live with him now, with supervised contact only for her. He has to send them with food.

@dontdisturbmenow

Did you actually think that was clever?
No. The child isn't financially autonomous. (Brb telling my 5 month old to get a job).

@dontdisturbmenow

As soon as you put your sperm in someone else's body, you lose the right to tell them what becomes of any resulting pregnancy What an utterly sexist view of the world.

Hate to break it to you, but Mother Nature is pretty sexist.

but you would also benefit when a new fella moves in.

It’s not this man’s responsibility to financially provide for another man’s children.

Come on now, did that really need pointed out?

[quote TheBusDriver]@Serendipity79 - jealousy the ultimate evil. Money only stretches so far.

The guy has bills to pay as well and with more children in the house the bills go up. You women claim the cost of children is expensive but you would also benefit when a new fella moves in. Is it not the same?

Cake and eat it springs to mind.[/quote]
I am not sure where you think jealousy comes into this. I'm not jealous of my ex or his new partner, I have pity for her but that's another topic.

I remain single through choice, and I would like to think I'd never attract the sort of man who would want to move in with me and immediately claim a reduction for CM for his children on the basis that I have children that aren't his.

I don't believe that children should get less CM paid towards their upbringing because the other parent has moved in with someone with children that aren't theirs. This is my personal opinion and I don't imagine I am in a minority.

Money only stretches so far. The guy has bills to pay as well and with more children in the house the bills go up

I actually find it really hard to get my head around this sort of male-centric non-logic.
Yes, money only stretches so far, that is why mothers need fathers to pay equally to the costs of their own children. The mother has bills to pay too - hers and her children's. If a man wants to take on financial responsibility for children not related to him that is his choice. It should not be an argument to reduce payments towards his own children.

Let's face it. What all of your arguments here boil down to is the fact that you think that single mothers and their kids should subsidise the life costs of the absent fathers. Not enough money to go around? Sure, let the man keep more and the women and kids have less.

I worked for CMS for 2 years. The system is a joke with no real power. The staff are hopelessly undertrained to deal with the level of abuse and horrific calls they take on a minimum wage. Imagine everyday, all you calls are people escaping horrific abuse, people threatening suicide and awful people laughing at you and saying they wont pay and theres nothing we can do. As CMS employees we were spat at, had our cars vandalised and were even hospitalised after being attacked. I was a union rep and the horrific stress people were under was awful to see. The dept couldnt keep staff for longer than 6 months and had the highest staff turnover for anywhere in the civil service.
I was a single mum from an abusive realtionship and I joined CMS to make a difference. I left after i had a nervous breakdown that was entirely due to my working conditions.
People dont want to hear this, but the law, enforcement and entire culture needs to change around CM and the Civil service and government needs to be at the front of this.

That's horrible RedAnnie

I imagine part of why people feel free to abuse people working at CMS is because they know nothing will happen to them.

If they knew CMS could arrange to take their paycheck or throw them in jail, they might be nicer.

@Kitcat47

Why is it women go on to get pregnant with men when they know they already have children that they dont pay for. Did they think they would be different with them?

Yes. Or they feel compelled to procreate with every 'partner' they get, 'have a baby of our own'. Then wind up alone. Then there's the good ol' UC system. No additional funding if you have more than 2 children (barring multiple second pregnancies, rape). Fair enough, it's been over 3 years since that's been the case, it's pretty common knowledge. But only applies to women and men who have kids with one woman, baby daddies are free to sprog at leisure. Well, why should a woman who had a child with a baby daddy be punished? Why should the government keep paying out to support all the children of one man because he has so many they need assistance?

Some men lie, some women make poor choices, and we have enough of a culture of thinking it's fine for men not to pay for their kids, mad/evil ex would only spend it on getting her nails done etc that it's no shock some people then absorb that view. It becomes a self-perpetuating problem.