Aibu to think not paying maintenance should be grounds for blocking contact

[Whypaymumwillsavetheday]

I’ve always gone along with ‘the child’s right to contact with their parent comes before any disputes over money’, ‘maintenance isn’t linked to contact’ ‘it’s not pay per view’. I’m now starting to think it is not in the best interests of a child to have a relationship with a parent who is unwilling and/or unable to provide the basic necessities. If I was to disregard my child’s needs in the same way, there would likely be serious intervention from social services. What is the difference?

I'm struggling to see the logic in effectively punishing the child twice, first by the other person failing to meet their financial needs and then secondly by the residential parent blocking them seeing their other parent.

And honestly it really sickens me when people use their child to get at another adult.

Yes give the child to a parent that refuses to feed it or cloth it, and constantly berates the only actual parent in their life. Great idea...

There's been plenty of examples of actual people saying how shit their dads were, even giving treats to step kids and ignoring their own child. But you think that's ok to force on an innocent child, because they must have contact or it's disgusting. 🤔

I'd love to see the studies this comment is based on.

A non-mysoginistic world would tackle the issue differently and properly punish parents who don't pay for their own children when they are able to do so. Imagine if it were criminalised? Why shouldn't it be? Obviously not those who cannot pay but those who simply do not pay and repeatedly do not. Don't deprive them of contact but punish them appropriately when they don't pay for their own children.

Resident parents who fail to support their own children are criminalised after all.

Hmmm. Issue is for those that are shit neglectful parents they aren’t really going to care about contact being cut are they, it probably won’t encourage the NRP to pay either, just going to have loads of kids with absent parents which will cause more psychological damage.

Which comment? The 50/50 one is fairly easy to source there are many non biased sources that claim YOUNG children benefit emotionally from having a solid home base for the early years so more one parent than the other when they are teenagers 50/50 can benefit however by that time they will want their friends more than parents in most cases

If its the comment about the housing its a common theme man and woman seperate man goes back to parents man meets another woman moves in with her etc etc my ex husband has done this many times he has never in 8 years had his children overnight because he doesnt have his own home and they are not welcome where he "stays occasionally" this is a repeated theme that I've seen all too often

It's important to remember that children have a REALLY low bar for what they consider a good parent. They will nearly always want to see both their parents, even if one of them feeds them crap food, doesn't buy them anything, and lives in a shithole. Being prevented from seeing a parent is psychologically really harmful and feels like abandonment.

Sometimes the parent is so abusive that contact is more harmful than abandonment. But mostly, it's in the child's interest to see the shit parent.

YABU. The financial concerns are real, but they should be your concerns, not a reason to deprive the children of their father's company. Children should not be used as blackmail tools in a relationship.

Children are women's work. Until we change that as a society, there will be no shift in how we tackle the non-payment of maintenance. Single mothers are seen as bottom of the social pile, single dads are heros. Look at Boris. I don't think I have ever heard anyone call him out on his dreadful behaviour towards his ex-wives/wife and children.

We see maintenance as a private matter - a very British thing, let's not talk about money. We assume there's more to it. We allow ourselves the argument 'but he worked and she worked part time so actually he gave her the house and everything in it' to take over. Or the 'but she earns more than him so why should be pay?' or even just 'she's a cow, why should he pay?'. We always blame the single mum for having had children with the man in the first place, like she was supposed to know it would end up a particular way and should take responsibility for it. Mothers, family members, colleagues, friends....all ignore the vocal man who claims he's not giving the greedy ex a penny. We never challenge.

I am 13 years and counting with no maintenance. My children enjoy a positive relationship with their father but I have not hidden the truth of the matter from them and never will. It's up to them. I believe strongly that things would improve rapidly with a few high profile cases where the CMS and the courts work together to nail a few parents who clearly live the high life and who's accountants have - legally or otherwise - made the money disappear for maintenance assessment purposes. A social media campaign that names and shames would pull many into line. The fact that it's possible to get away with paying no maintenance is the loophole - we need to close it.

I’m more of the let the child slowly make thier own mind up which they often will when they’re older.

my ex is going on holiday to Spain next month and paid for his gf and all of her kids, but he’s skint and can’t afford maintenance this month.

the kids are starting to see through him now

Would this also apply to those who end a relationship ‘just because’ they’re unhappy? After all, the outcome is the same, the secure home of the children is changed.

Denying someone access to their children should not be punishment for infidelity. It doesn’t just hurt that person, it will hurt the children too if they otherwise have a good relationship with the parent. I’ve seen this in real life, and the children involved (my friend and her brother), while they know their father was wrong to cheat, have never forgiven their mother for responding how she did and depriving them of a relationship (when they were teenagers they were able to contact their father, and ended up both moving in with him). It’s their father they have a relationship with now, not their mother.

Imo linking contact to maintenance is going to end up meaning that more fathers are going to completely check out, rather than pay. While there are men already that don’t pay and have no contact, there are men that don’t pay yet will still maintain a relationship with their child/children, are financially responsible for them when they have them, and at least give the mother a break. So not only does the mother not get maintenance if the father completely checks out, she becomes 100% responsible for the child. No break, and a greater financial burden.

There are also plenty of studies that suggest the opposite. My personal situation proves that it's entirely possible and beneficial to the child, although I realise one example doesn't prove anything, and biomum is an amazing and selfless person which is rarely the case in these types of situations.

Your comment that divorced men 'don't have their own house but rather one with a new woman who rules the roost making the children feel particularly unwelcome' is based on nothing and reeks of bias.

I did not say that the house with the new woman rules the roost making the kids feel unwelcome I said in my personal experience my ex goes from womans house to mummy's house and perhaps I wasn't clear HE says they are not welcome and his MOTHER says they are not welcome with his ex children services said they could not stay at her house with this one who knows I don't know her and I haven't been called by children services as yet so until they do I can only assume she is stable

And again it's based on my personal experience so not based on nothing

You argue 'most men do x' based on your own isolated experience?

Anyway, that wasn't the purpose of this thread so it's not really relevant. But comments like this really show the double standard in wanting fathers to step up more but only in the way that is beneficial to mum.

@FrankLampardsBrokenHand
”And honestly it really sickens me when people use their child to get at another adult.”

which is PRECISELY what nrp are doing when they refuse to pay maintenance.

But they won’t call him out on it. They’ll accept the crumbs that he fix their way and think the sun shines out of his arse.

Mum is held to a far higher standard

@ILikeHotWaterBottles I've been that child, the end result was I resented my mother for it and never forgave her.
It is not something I would subject my own kids to.

Exactly my point, I'm sorry she did that to you. People here aren't listening to people like you, who have been forced to spend time with a shit parent. They think they know better

@ILikeHotWaterBottles I think you're misunderstanding, I adored my father and spending time with him. I resented and never forgave my mother for preventing me from spending time with him.

Oh I did misunderstand, I thought youeant she sent you to your dad and he wasn't nice, like other posters had to deal with. She shouldn't have stopped you if he wasn't abusive, what was her reason?

@ILikeHotWaterBottles She never gave a reason. They divorced when I was six. She just used to say he didn't want me and other hurtful things about him.
I used to sneak off to see him when I got to be around fourteen without her knowing.
He never said anything bad to me about my mother, even when I was crying about the injustice of it to him.
I found out in my later years that my mother had an affair, which he found out about which led to him leaving.

It's obviously really difficult, but how can anyone argue that a father is a good father if they don't pay maintenance?

??

My parents divorced in the 1970s and my father was a high earner. I know he paid generous maintenance because when he later got together with his girlfriend she openly moaned in front of me about still having to work. She was in her early 30s at this point and had no children and obviously felt she shouldn't have to work as she'd bagged a high earning much older man.

She went on to have 3 children with him who got everything from my father that I didn't have - time, attention, holidays and Christmasses. Even a share of his will! I was 16 when they had their first child and never received a penny from him after I finished University and never had more than half a day a week contact with him after I was 11 or 12.

Now I know this just wasn't good enough and I don't think of him as a good Dad. I gradually came to this feeling over the years, confirmed for definite when he wrote me out of his will in 2010 (when I was in my late 40s) leaving everything to my step mother and my 3 half siblings.

Your children might look fondly on the absent parent for a while but as they grow up and learn more about the real world ... it could all change.

@A580Hojas Because money doesn't make you a good or a bad person.
But for my father, I would probably have ended up either in prison or dead.
My mother on the other hand didn't give a shit as long as she could point score.

No but purposely withholding support does. The discussion is about wont pay not can’t pay