Aibu to think we need to change the system? Too many men getting away with pump & dump!

[FamilyLife2point4]

Just that I suppose?
Im reading lots of threads about men getting away with sooo much in terms of creating a child. The system here in the UK seems flawed, CMS seem pretty incompetent, courts don’t / won’t enforce men to take on their fair share of parenting / childcare / finances involved in raising a child. Not to mention the emotional benefits for a child’s well-being and sense of belonging at having an active, present, safe father, (whether the parents are together or not).

From what I read, some other countries have far fairer systems and absent parents are actively prosecuted. I am also aware this applies to the smaller minority of absent mothers vs single dads too, but I honestly don’t read anywhere near as many stories of that so this is more focussed on men (no offence intended).

I don’t believe this country will change on its own, but what will it take - those wronged parents (& children) plus supporters perhaps coming together and actively petitioning to change the law? Open to suggestions?

What if we could change the law - what would it look like?
I’m also thinking about this from the other perspective of women who withhold children from their dads (for the variety of wrong reasons - not because the dad is violent / abusive / danger to kids etc) and how a reform could also ensure equality all round.

For clarity my name is as it suggests, happily married with 2 kids, DH grafts hard, would try shirk housework if I let him away with it, but has always been hands on with kids - it just makes me sooo sad and mad at all the inequality I keep reading about.

YANBU - to think that if you do the crime, you do the time - provide for and raise those kids equally - the system needs reformed.

YABU - absent parents / Disney dads should continue to pump and dump kids as they please and we should do fuck all about the system that enables it.

But don’t you see women having access to termination would be a right to opt out of parenthood that men would not have with your silly “abstinence” idea?

Biology is not a valid excuse for human inequality. Both sexes should have the right to opt out of parenthood in the event of an unplanned pregnancy.

@JudgeRudy im not sure I fully understand but in an ideal world if in a 2nd / blended family there are DSC then their dad pays for them and DH/DP pays for his child(ren) with ex. The mum with 2 teen kids would be receiving maintenance for both then regardless of SAH.

In the blended family scenario - if they were to have a child together, this should not alter current maintenance payments (system seems broken here too). If this family split, the father would then have 2 full maintenance payments (is this great for him, no, however he now has at least 2 kids across 2 households that need cared for and that is his responsibility). This is were a few choice fellas might quit working - and therefore should be prosecuted / have licenses and passports removed imo (and shouldn’t get to escape the debt either - it just keeps building) a PP mentioned illness and possible other reasons being unfair for building arrears - but those are quite different scenarios to the stories I read even here on MN.

There’s a few PP related to women need to stop having babies / getting with unsuitable partners - from what I understand, these women step up and take care of their babies. Turning it around - men need to stop inseminating women / sleeping with unsuitable partners - as it is they who are in the majority for not being able to / not wanting to take care of their babies.

We can talk about disregarding biology the second we have invented ways for men to carry babies from conception to term.

Until then, if you are a man and you want to guarantee you don’t have children, don’t have sex. It is as simple as that.

Both parents should be held financially responsible for their children, but there are ways to cheat the system, so it's never perfect. Beyond the financial responsibility of parenting, if a man is such a piece of shit that he doesn't want to be involved in his child's life, tbh, the child is probably better off without him. In an ideal world, children would have two involved parents, barring the untimely death of one or both parents, but that's never going to happen.

Of course there are exceptions where a man acts the part for years before revealing his true colours, but many times there is ample evidence that a man won't be a decent father well before a baby comes along. Being more particular about who we have sex and relationships with is the first step to protecting ourselves and our future children. Being proactive about contraception is the next.

Life isn't fair, and probably never will be. If we don't look out for ourselves, no-one else will. That may mean less fun, but it also means less heartbreak and struggle later on.

So why is it ok to tell men essentially the same message as keep your legs closed if you don’t want children? It wasn’t ok when women were told be celibate, so it’s not ok for men to be told be celibate imho.

Child support for 18yr is a big ask, when the man isn’t even asking you to carry the child to term. You’ve taken on that danger yourself. That was your choice, not his.

Now this I def could get behind.

Poor parents whether that's withholding money, emotionally damaging or not being there for their kids need to go on compulsory courses designed to correct behaviours and they must pass to gain access to their children.

If they pass they are required by law to provide 50:50 child support. If they only see their children 2 days a week, they provide funding for tge other 1.5 days.

If they fail or are deemed inappropriate in terms of behaviour, racism/ sexism etc, they don't see their children unsupervised, thry fund the supervision not the local authority, and need to pay more for the support system they should be providing for the kids ie £ to fund 3.5 days of professional care or to grandparents /uncles/ aunts/ older cousins etc who provide that support and leisure time for the children in place of the missing parent. Those on benefits or low pay don't get away with paying ie they can go to work or get a second job. Paying for their kids comes first. One day we will realise children are the future and we our society, needs them to be healthy and effectively perform their societal roles. If we keep kids in cycles of stress, mental challenge and nutritional deprivation, how are they going to be healthy adults, fulfilling their potentials?

In addition to the child maintenance, the single parent then just needs £ contribution for food/ accomodation and to meet the child's needs - clothing, shoes.

The single parent also gets their own money from the split up - courts can decide this as each case is different and thus then takes account of one parent being richer than the other., so this may include maintenance but only where appropriate. It's unfair if one parent has to work to fund their 50% responsibility if the other parent can sit on their arse.

The child's age obviously bears into.the structure - the younger the child, the greater tge challenge to be a working parent, but plenty of families have both parents working and fund child care, so it's obviously doable if costs are split equally for the child's needs.

I know a rich father who have left theur ex and their kids in the family home. Split the hkme 50:50 but put their portion of the family home in their kids names and set up pensions for their kids too. I recall earning a good salary and he paid his ex-wife, who ran off with a police officer, a grand a month more than I myself earnt and he was covering the full mirtgage on top, yet whenever he had the kids, they never came with clothes, underwear or anything. They had chappy shoes on etc and asked him for new stuff, like she was priming them to ask. He even payed for piano lessilons for his eldest and his ex said gender stopped paying them, but he proved he was still paying so switched to paying the tutor directly. His Ex went on to self harm in front of the kids and drank herself into stupors. 2 of the kids have eating disorders, and a child she had with the police officer recently committed suicide. Sometimes, no matter what the stable parent does, children suffer. My law, in this case would take her kids from her until she sorted her life out. She would have to pay 50% of the children's needs too so she would need a job because it is unfair that a parent who has a good salary is expected to provide maintenance to their exes. In this case, the father paid his ex who then abused their position as a parent and caused damage to the wellbeing of their children.

This system isn't infallible, so a person's vulnerability to suggestion/ coercion etc would need to be considered for it to be fairly decided upon.

I have no idea you'd best take that up with those other governments who consider that it works.

Non paying parents should ultimately be criminalised. Their actions are causing children to suffer. Why the hell should that be allowed?

Women were told that ‘we can talk about women entering the workforce and not being housebound mothers the second men can carry fetuses around in a box’. You’re trotting out the exact same shit women were told, only saying it to men. It’s wasn’t right then, and it’s not right now.

The thing is 99/100 it’s the woman literally left holding the baby. It’s infantilising women to say that they can’t choose a partner carefully. That’s not to say people end up with men who seem perfectly committed and run off or end up unexpectedly pregnant, but a lot of people posting on this site don’t seem to put an excess of thought in to having a baby with someone, even where they both already have children or women who want a baby or in some cases another baby. Men need to face their responsibilities but women do too, they are selling themselves short and doing harm to their innocent children.

@Onnabugeisha
If we all accept your idea that it's fair for a man to walk as a woman can have a termination (for the record I don't!), would you impose a time limit on his right to abandon a child? Or is it fair that he could be fully on board with a pregnancy until the moment of birth? Or abandon a child who has already arrived? A termination is a time limited option for women. How about a man has a right to abandon for the same time period?

50/50? Mu ex struggles with a couple of hours a week and no he won't pay he quits his job so he doesn't have to and his girlfriend supports him why should I turn over these children to a man who refuses REFUSES to pay even a pittance for their support and expect him to care for them he effectively blocked me from moving then moved away himself yet if I say I wish to move (for better sen provision) he screams he will take me to court and puts pressure on ds to refuse to move so we are stuck and because the police never EVER prosecute him despite numerous arrests I have no "legitimate" reasons to stop contact

There needs to be middle ground

I agree something needs to be done. But the CMS system is absolutely shocking to very present dads.. well parents in general.

I'm not sure about prosecution because do you want to force a shitty parent on a child because they want to avoid prison?

So tricky. Should be a case by case basis.

Yes, the time limit is same as for a termination imho. If the man hasn’t said he’s not going to be a parent to the child by then, then he’s accepting parenthood.

I think too if a mum wants to put her baby up for adoption, then if the father wants the baby, he is automatically the responsible parent. Currently, the father has to file to adopt his own baby.

Im not saying that a man that suddenly walks out on a mum who is heavily pregnant owes nothing. Or a divorce with older children involved, means he can sod off.

I don’t think you are correct about adoption? If a father is already on the birth certificate the child cannot be adopted without him relinquishing his parental rights

Exactly dds "father" effectively abandoned her when she was three he had more children and because I refused to allow him to wander in and out when he felt like it and after he took her to get high I kicked off apparently this was uncool of me and he dipped out (he didn't have a drug problem when we met he developed one with his wife)

Ds 1&2 I was married too him he is ducking out of their lives regularly now they are choosing to duck out on him his attitude has really rubbed off on them

Where do you draw the line? Duck out by 20 weeks or stay for 18 years? Make it through the pregnancy? Year one? 6 months?

Women have to take their share of the responsibility & stop getting pregnant by these losers. Too many women use men just for the sole reason to get pregnant & then expect the man to support a child they didn't expect or want, contraception is a two way street. There should be some kind of legal service like mediation in the family courts where if the woman chooses to not have a termination the man can walk away, it might stop some of the women who use men solely as a means of getting pregnant, I don't mean for where a couple split after having children. There should also be more research & development in to methods of male contraception, all the years since the pill was developed, what choices do men have, condoms or a vasectomy, I know women would say how do we know that a man has taken pills or has an implant etc, but that is what a man has to do.

Sorry, I left out that detail. This scenario usually happens with unmarried couples and the mother doesn’t put the father on the birth certificate.

But of course then the father would have to apply for his parental rights, legally he has no relationship to the child.

Yes, I think you may have misunderstood. Yourectalking about a separate issue and that is should people have children they can't afford to provide for? That's a topic in itself and not one I was moralising on. My point was if dad goes on to have a family with someone else and wife2 isn't working he has an obligation to provide (minimally) for those children. Anything over and above 'poverty' is shared equally so he pays a proportion to Wife 1. W1 also has a financial obligation for the their children but if eg she goes on to have further children (and is not working) she cannot contribute to her kids costs. If dad is able he should pay more but not so his other kids go short. If both parents are working they pay half each.
I had a friend who has 3 children to 3 fathers....spread out. She hasn't really worked but often says she pays for everything for the kids and the dads pay a fiver (?). Well no she doesn't pay Anything for her kids, I do. Dad 2 has married and had another child. He works but they're on UC. His rent is astronomical. She got the £90/week council house. Now she is a good example of having kids you can't afford. But I still don't think he should have to pay her£100/week that he hadn't got.
I do of course think there should be consequences for non payment

@FamilyLife2point4 Why are you trying to pretend your gross 'pump and dump' reference is about breastfeeding? It's clearly not. It's a vulgar expression for having sex with someone.

Vile. Like previous posters, I CBA to read any more after that grim title.

How about a man has a right to abandon for the same time period?

No fucus given about the rights of a child then? To know both parents? Family? To receive emotional and financial support?

*fucks

If a man walks away from his child he should be made to pay financially. I don't think he should be forced to have contact/provide childcare, mother's are not forced to do this either, many women give up their children. I think it would be far worse for the child if a parent was made to have contact, they don't want to be there and the child will feel that, however if they do not want to have contact they should be made to pay towards childcare so that the mother gets a break.

I think this argument would have some merit if men generally took as much responsibility for contraception as women do. But they don’t. So I don’t think it’s reasonable to talk about all these women who are “using” men to get pregnant.

I’m not doubting it sometimes happens, but I’ve never come across someone in real life who’s done it. Even in married couples, women are constantly bearing the cost of contraception to a far greater degree than men, but it’s men who tend to walk out on children (planned or otherwise) leaving women to pick up the cost.

So taking action to increase the pressure on women and relieve it on men doesn’t seem likely to unscrew a currently skewed system.