Page 19 | Child maintenance one night stand

Roses121 · 2023-07-18T12:48:41+00:00

I got pregnant from a one night stand 2 years ago. I was 19 at the time and he was 35. Wasn’t really thinking straight and although we used contraception I ended up pregnant. I made the decision to keep my baby and knew full well I would be raising him on my own. I didn’t want a relationship with him. I didn’t have any expectations for his father although he said he wanted to be in his life and has been. My son has never stayed overnight with him as he’s breastfed (16 months now), so we’ve only ever met at public places as I would feel a bit weird having him at my place and vice versa. When we met I was aware that he had kids (2) and he told me he had split from his ex 3 years prior. Looking back now, it’s possible he lied about the last part just to get me in to bed. I have not met her or their kids or anyone from his family and vice versa. Contact is not that often, maybe once or twice a month. I am starting uni in September and will have less money since I’ll have to take on less hours at work. Up until this point I have never asked him for money nor has he offered but after looking at the child maintenance calculator I think my son is entitled to 300-400 monthly. I know that legally a man is obliged to pay this but morally speaking, would it be wrong to put in a claim since we didn’t plan the baby? Also I will add that although he was shocked when I told him I was pregnant, as was I, he never said ‘I don’t want it.’ I think it’s likely that he pays for his other kids, whether he is in a relationship with her or not, so I think it’s unfair on my son to get nothing but I’m also aware if I do claim it then he’ll have less money for his other kids so I feel a bit bad about that. I don’t know his salary but Googling average incomes for his job are between 30-50k hence why it estimates 300-400, he is also currently building a house in another country so I know he’s not broke if you get me. Hope this all make sense x

Willyoujustbequiet · 21/07/2023 14:32

He has to pay up and as you have his previous employer the HMRC will track him from his insurance number. Its.a done deal.

Well done OP. Not only uni but also standing up for your child who will be proud of you in years to come for doing it.

Ignore the tiny minority of handmaidens.

SpiralHecate · 21/07/2023 19:39

@Roses121 Ah okay, I understand now. Well of course you had your child for yourself, is he so vain he thinks a girl he barely knew would keep the baby for his sake?

I'm getting a better picture of this guy and he really doesn't sound very nice at all. If he met you at the venue where he works chances are this wasn't the only time he's done something like that. The only reason I asked was more to assure you that you've behaved far more honourably throughout all this than he has.

If you do decide to pursue him for the child support you're entitled to, best of luck with it. It sounds like you're best off going through the proper channels than trying to reason with him. Don't let him pressure you into anything you don't want.

Remember in the long term that children need stability and security more than they need two parents, and I think you can give your son all that on your own. No father is better than a bad one.

aloris · 21/07/2023 20:35

Nofurme · 20/07/2023 08:32

I’m sorry why should two adults not have equal choices! Two adults using contraception find woman is pregnant - woman has choices relating to her body and baby at birth. Why should man have no choice at all. It’s not anti woman - it’s more anti men to say the man has to live with choice coz they had sex. Woman can always choose. He chose contraception too. Then together they choose. If a woman choses to abort he has no choice. So why can’t a man say no we used contraception - now there’s a pregnancy im not ready for a child my choice is not to be part of it.
I know a million posters will say that’s not okay but really why is choice only one way!

Ps in general terms not this post

If you think about this in terms of public policy, it gets awkward. A man wears a condom to have sex and says he doesn't want a baby. The condom breaks. If the law does not require him to support the child he fathered, then essentially the woman is forced to choose either (a) to support the child alone or (b) abort the child. So what you are proposing is essentially a situation where BOTH parties used contraception, but ONLY the woman ever bears the burden of contraception failure, and a situation that highly encourages, maybe even coercively encourages, women to get abortions if the pregnancy was unplanned (and let's remember, before contraception, most pregnancies were unplanned. Unplanned was the historical default, not the exception). That is very unequal.

So essentially, you are contorting the nature of the situation so as to ignore pertinent facts, in other words you're very selectively looking at a tiny part of the situation so you can whine that it's unequal for the poor men. But in reality, it's the woman who is more burdened, no matter what happens: whether she (A) has the baby, (B) aborts the baby, or (C) gives up the baby for adoption. In each of those situations, the man suffers less. Let's take situation A. If she has the baby, yes he has to pay a small amount of child maintenance, but as we've seen from so many threads here, it's she who gives up her freedom, pays most of the costs of raising the child, etc. His burden is far less than hers. Let's take situation B. If she aborts the baby, all he sees is that the baby is gone. La la la, he goes back to his normal life, hardly even noticed someone was pregnant. She has to make the wrenching decision, has to endure an abortion, maybe it's against her conscience, maybe her social group will judge her, maybe she will have medical secondary issues from the abortion, etc. Totally unequal, her burden is greater. Let's take situation C. She gives up the baby for adoption. She still undergoes an entire pregnancy. She probably bonds with her baby in utero. She has to separate from her baby, which may be emotionally wrenching. Many women who gave up babies for adoption never quite got over it. What does the man do: oh it's taken care of, he never meets the baby, never thinks of it again, may not even remember he once got a woman pregnant. Again, totally unequal, his burden is far less.

So as you can see, in all those situations, the burden on the woman is greater than on the man no matter which option she chooses. But you are narrowing down the field of view so that all you can see is the effect on the man, and pretending that's the only important part of the picture and the rest of it doesn't exist or doesn't matter.

Look, it's very simple. All contraception has a failure rate. Anyone who uses contraception, accepts by default that there is a chance his partner will become pregnant. All the contraception accomplishes is to REDUCE that rate. If he wishes to 100% avoid that, the only 100% effective method is abstinence. if he doesn't want to pay for any baby that results from sex, saying "But I wore a condom" is not a valid defense. It's not the woman's obligation to indemnify him from the failure rate of contraception. It's not a woman's obligation to take the unfair nature of pregnancy and endure that the resulting burdens always fall on herself so that an unplanned pregnancy never makes a man sad.

gemstoneju · 21/07/2023 20:49

'It's not a woman's obligation to take the unfair nature of pregnancy and endure that the resulting burdens always fall on herself so that an unplanned pregnancy never makes a man sad.'

Exactly, and this thread has made me more convinced than ever that there needs to be a more urgent and concerted push for a decent form of male birth control, and for them to willingly use it, because they are infinitely more fertile than us. Even the language is so passive and reflects the societal view that diminishes the agency of men - women 'get' pregnant, women 'fall' pregnant. No, women are impregnated. The moral and physical burdens forced on women are unjust.

DrSbaitso · 21/07/2023 21:42

Of course it's unfair that men don't get a choice about abortion, but it's the kind of unfair we can't do anything about. It's also unfair that women have a window on their fertility in a way men haven't, but we aren't demanding that men have vasectomies in their 40s to right this injustice. Some things we can even out, some things we can't, so we take the interests of the person most affected, or the child, and we prioritise that. Because while it's not "fair" that a man can't choose an abortion, it's way better than the alternative - men being able to force pregnancy and childbirth, or abortions, on unwilling women, and fathers being able to abdicate all responsibility for their own children, with the taxpayer more liable than they are.

That some men see it as hate that they should be made to pay a nominal amount towards their own children, that women and the state do not owe them risk and consequence free sex, that women and the state should not be more responsible for their children and themselves than they are, is a sign of how deep the entitlement runs in these particular people.

NowItsLikeSnowAtTheBeach · 21/07/2023 22:26

aloris · 21/07/2023 20:35

If you think about this in terms of public policy, it gets awkward. A man wears a condom to have sex and says he doesn't want a baby. The condom breaks. If the law does not require him to support the child he fathered, then essentially the woman is forced to choose either (a) to support the child alone or (b) abort the child. So what you are proposing is essentially a situation where BOTH parties used contraception, but ONLY the woman ever bears the burden of contraception failure, and a situation that highly encourages, maybe even coercively encourages, women to get abortions if the pregnancy was unplanned (and let's remember, before contraception, most pregnancies were unplanned. Unplanned was the historical default, not the exception). That is very unequal.

So essentially, you are contorting the nature of the situation so as to ignore pertinent facts, in other words you're very selectively looking at a tiny part of the situation so you can whine that it's unequal for the poor men. But in reality, it's the woman who is more burdened, no matter what happens: whether she (A) has the baby, (B) aborts the baby, or (C) gives up the baby for adoption. In each of those situations, the man suffers less. Let's take situation A. If she has the baby, yes he has to pay a small amount of child maintenance, but as we've seen from so many threads here, it's she who gives up her freedom, pays most of the costs of raising the child, etc. His burden is far less than hers. Let's take situation B. If she aborts the baby, all he sees is that the baby is gone. La la la, he goes back to his normal life, hardly even noticed someone was pregnant. She has to make the wrenching decision, has to endure an abortion, maybe it's against her conscience, maybe her social group will judge her, maybe she will have medical secondary issues from the abortion, etc. Totally unequal, her burden is greater. Let's take situation C. She gives up the baby for adoption. She still undergoes an entire pregnancy. She probably bonds with her baby in utero. She has to separate from her baby, which may be emotionally wrenching. Many women who gave up babies for adoption never quite got over it. What does the man do: oh it's taken care of, he never meets the baby, never thinks of it again, may not even remember he once got a woman pregnant. Again, totally unequal, his burden is far less.

So as you can see, in all those situations, the burden on the woman is greater than on the man no matter which option she chooses. But you are narrowing down the field of view so that all you can see is the effect on the man, and pretending that's the only important part of the picture and the rest of it doesn't exist or doesn't matter.

Look, it's very simple. All contraception has a failure rate. Anyone who uses contraception, accepts by default that there is a chance his partner will become pregnant. All the contraception accomplishes is to REDUCE that rate. If he wishes to 100% avoid that, the only 100% effective method is abstinence. if he doesn't want to pay for any baby that results from sex, saying "But I wore a condom" is not a valid defense. It's not the woman's obligation to indemnify him from the failure rate of contraception. It's not a woman's obligation to take the unfair nature of pregnancy and endure that the resulting burdens always fall on herself so that an unplanned pregnancy never makes a man sad.

Show quote history

Spot on, @Aloris, spot on.

DamnUserName21 · 21/07/2023 22:47

Whatthefuck3456 · 18/07/2023 15:30

men who are not on the birth cert should not have to pay maintenance. It’s the mums choice to not give the father legal rights so he should not have to pay as is not on the birth cert

Unless a couple are married, the father has to be present at birth registration in order to go on birth certificate. Men are not present for many reasons and it, usually, is not down to 'mums choice'. In OP's case, her child's father was out of the country.
A father not being on birth certificate is still required to pay child maintenance unless he contests the child is not his and then he will have to get DNA test to prove otherwise.

MumGMT · 21/07/2023 22:55

Excellent post @aloris

JenniferBooth · 21/07/2023 23:52

Im sure i heard a snippet on the news yesterday that they are about to get stricter with parents who try to avoid paying

CakeyBakeyHeart · 22/07/2023 00:31

aloris · 21/07/2023 20:35

If you think about this in terms of public policy, it gets awkward. A man wears a condom to have sex and says he doesn't want a baby. The condom breaks. If the law does not require him to support the child he fathered, then essentially the woman is forced to choose either (a) to support the child alone or (b) abort the child. So what you are proposing is essentially a situation where BOTH parties used contraception, but ONLY the woman ever bears the burden of contraception failure, and a situation that highly encourages, maybe even coercively encourages, women to get abortions if the pregnancy was unplanned (and let's remember, before contraception, most pregnancies were unplanned. Unplanned was the historical default, not the exception). That is very unequal.

So essentially, you are contorting the nature of the situation so as to ignore pertinent facts, in other words you're very selectively looking at a tiny part of the situation so you can whine that it's unequal for the poor men. But in reality, it's the woman who is more burdened, no matter what happens: whether she (A) has the baby, (B) aborts the baby, or (C) gives up the baby for adoption. In each of those situations, the man suffers less. Let's take situation A. If she has the baby, yes he has to pay a small amount of child maintenance, but as we've seen from so many threads here, it's she who gives up her freedom, pays most of the costs of raising the child, etc. His burden is far less than hers. Let's take situation B. If she aborts the baby, all he sees is that the baby is gone. La la la, he goes back to his normal life, hardly even noticed someone was pregnant. She has to make the wrenching decision, has to endure an abortion, maybe it's against her conscience, maybe her social group will judge her, maybe she will have medical secondary issues from the abortion, etc. Totally unequal, her burden is greater. Let's take situation C. She gives up the baby for adoption. She still undergoes an entire pregnancy. She probably bonds with her baby in utero. She has to separate from her baby, which may be emotionally wrenching. Many women who gave up babies for adoption never quite got over it. What does the man do: oh it's taken care of, he never meets the baby, never thinks of it again, may not even remember he once got a woman pregnant. Again, totally unequal, his burden is far less.

So as you can see, in all those situations, the burden on the woman is greater than on the man no matter which option she chooses. But you are narrowing down the field of view so that all you can see is the effect on the man, and pretending that's the only important part of the picture and the rest of it doesn't exist or doesn't matter.

Look, it's very simple. All contraception has a failure rate. Anyone who uses contraception, accepts by default that there is a chance his partner will become pregnant. All the contraception accomplishes is to REDUCE that rate. If he wishes to 100% avoid that, the only 100% effective method is abstinence. if he doesn't want to pay for any baby that results from sex, saying "But I wore a condom" is not a valid defense. It's not the woman's obligation to indemnify him from the failure rate of contraception. It's not a woman's obligation to take the unfair nature of pregnancy and endure that the resulting burdens always fall on herself so that an unplanned pregnancy never makes a man sad.

Show quote history

When you say that if the law does not force a man to financially support his child ‘what you are proposing is essentially a situation where BOTH parties used contraception, but ONLY the woman ever bears the burden of contraception failure’ you’re suggesting that to men the burden of contraception failure is only financial. I imagine that if you don’t want a child the mental burden of having a child you didn’t want out there in the world is quite significant.

‘If she aborts the baby, all he sees is that the baby is gone. La la la, he goes back to his normal life, hardly even noticed someone was pregnant’ - whilst this may be the case for some men, many may be very torn on whether they want the pregnancy to go ahead, some may have pro-life views that they only realise after the news and suffer greatly by an abortion of their future child being carried out against their will.

‘Let's take situation A. If she has the baby, yes he has to pay a small amount of child maintenance, but as we've seen from so many threads here, it's she who gives up her freedom, pays most of the costs of raising the child, etc. His burden is far less than hers.’ - when you talk about loss of freedom and loss of finances as a burden I think you should really be looking at net burden, as an absent dad whilst missing out on the aspects that are a burden (loss of time/finance/freedom) is also missing out on all the special moments that make it worthwhile which you are having as a result of the choice made. After all why would you have a child (pro life aspects aside) if you anticipate it being a net burden.

Twentytwothousand · 22/07/2023 06:58

aloris · 21/07/2023 20:35

If you think about this in terms of public policy, it gets awkward. A man wears a condom to have sex and says he doesn't want a baby. The condom breaks. If the law does not require him to support the child he fathered, then essentially the woman is forced to choose either (a) to support the child alone or (b) abort the child. So what you are proposing is essentially a situation where BOTH parties used contraception, but ONLY the woman ever bears the burden of contraception failure, and a situation that highly encourages, maybe even coercively encourages, women to get abortions if the pregnancy was unplanned (and let's remember, before contraception, most pregnancies were unplanned. Unplanned was the historical default, not the exception). That is very unequal.

So essentially, you are contorting the nature of the situation so as to ignore pertinent facts, in other words you're very selectively looking at a tiny part of the situation so you can whine that it's unequal for the poor men. But in reality, it's the woman who is more burdened, no matter what happens: whether she (A) has the baby, (B) aborts the baby, or (C) gives up the baby for adoption. In each of those situations, the man suffers less. Let's take situation A. If she has the baby, yes he has to pay a small amount of child maintenance, but as we've seen from so many threads here, it's she who gives up her freedom, pays most of the costs of raising the child, etc. His burden is far less than hers. Let's take situation B. If she aborts the baby, all he sees is that the baby is gone. La la la, he goes back to his normal life, hardly even noticed someone was pregnant. She has to make the wrenching decision, has to endure an abortion, maybe it's against her conscience, maybe her social group will judge her, maybe she will have medical secondary issues from the abortion, etc. Totally unequal, her burden is greater. Let's take situation C. She gives up the baby for adoption. She still undergoes an entire pregnancy. She probably bonds with her baby in utero. She has to separate from her baby, which may be emotionally wrenching. Many women who gave up babies for adoption never quite got over it. What does the man do: oh it's taken care of, he never meets the baby, never thinks of it again, may not even remember he once got a woman pregnant. Again, totally unequal, his burden is far less.

So as you can see, in all those situations, the burden on the woman is greater than on the man no matter which option she chooses. But you are narrowing down the field of view so that all you can see is the effect on the man, and pretending that's the only important part of the picture and the rest of it doesn't exist or doesn't matter.

Look, it's very simple. All contraception has a failure rate. Anyone who uses contraception, accepts by default that there is a chance his partner will become pregnant. All the contraception accomplishes is to REDUCE that rate. If he wishes to 100% avoid that, the only 100% effective method is abstinence. if he doesn't want to pay for any baby that results from sex, saying "But I wore a condom" is not a valid defense. It's not the woman's obligation to indemnify him from the failure rate of contraception. It's not a woman's obligation to take the unfair nature of pregnancy and endure that the resulting burdens always fall on herself so that an unplanned pregnancy never makes a man sad.

Show quote history

This is the best response to this question I have ever seen and I will quote it widely. It is not an equal situation at all, ever.

sunglassesonthetable · 22/07/2023 07:36

This is the best response to this question I have ever seen and I will quote it widely. It is not an equal situation at all, ever.

👏🏼

DonnaBanana · 22/07/2023 08:44

the only 100% effective method is abstinence

And yet whenever someone gets the bright idea of teaching this in school people get all upset. People need to stop having casual sex because casual sex does not exist when a baby can occur from it! Full stop.

Flyingskunk · 22/07/2023 08:48

Maybe he doesn’t pay because he is still in a relationship potentially with the mother of his children and is going to have some serious explaining to do.
Definitely talk to him first. Once you put a claim in things could turn unpleasant and you could be throwing a grenade into some other poor woman and children’s lives.
To add I’m not saying he shouldn’t pay just don’t jump straight to the CMS.
I know a guy who this happened to and he spent the next 18 years doing voluntary work abroad just so that he never had to pay a penny for that child. He’s married with a child now and I often wonder if he regrets it.

AnSolas · 22/07/2023 11:06

CakeyBakeyHeart · 22/07/2023 00:31

When you say that if the law does not force a man to financially support his child ‘what you are proposing is essentially a situation where BOTH parties used contraception, but ONLY the woman ever bears the burden of contraception failure’ you’re suggesting that to men the burden of contraception failure is only financial. I imagine that if you don’t want a child the mental burden of having a child you didn’t want out there in the world is quite significant.

‘If she aborts the baby, all he sees is that the baby is gone. La la la, he goes back to his normal life, hardly even noticed someone was pregnant’ - whilst this may be the case for some men, many may be very torn on whether they want the pregnancy to go ahead, some may have pro-life views that they only realise after the news and suffer greatly by an abortion of their future child being carried out against their will.

‘Let's take situation A. If she has the baby, yes he has to pay a small amount of child maintenance, but as we've seen from so many threads here, it's she who gives up her freedom, pays most of the costs of raising the child, etc. His burden is far less than hers.’ - when you talk about loss of freedom and loss of finances as a burden I think you should really be looking at net burden, as an absent dad whilst missing out on the aspects that are a burden (loss of time/finance/freedom) is also missing out on all the special moments that make it worthwhile which you are having as a result of the choice made. After all why would you have a child (pro life aspects aside) if you anticipate it being a net burden.

Show quote history

Sigh..

Then none of these men should engage in baby making activity, the same idea as not becoming a crash test dummy.

sunglassesonthetable · 22/07/2023 11:31

as an absent dad whilst missing out on the aspects that are a burden (loss of time/finance/freedom) is also missing out on all the special moments that make it worthwhile which you are having as a result of the choice made. After all why would you have a child (pro life aspects aside) if you anticipate it being a net burden.

You do wonder don't you?

Yet it happens so often ( and I'm basing that on people I know ) not what you so often read on here.

NowItsLikeSnowAtTheBeach · 22/07/2023 12:32

DamnUserName21 · 21/07/2023 22:47

Unless a couple are married, the father has to be present at birth registration in order to go on birth certificate. Men are not present for many reasons and it, usually, is not down to 'mums choice'. In OP's case, her child's father was out of the country.
A father not being on birth certificate is still required to pay child maintenance unless he contests the child is not his and then he will have to get DNA test to prove otherwise.

Show quote history

Exactly

Stop trying to punish children for grown ups' issues. Children are entitled to the support of both parents.

NowItsLikeSnowAtTheBeach · 22/07/2023 12:35

That some men see it as hatethat they should be made to pay a nominal amount towards their own children, that women and the state do not owe them risk and consequence free sex, that women and the state should not be more responsible for their children and themselves than they are, is a sign of how deep the entitlement runs in these particular people.

Chillingly accurate about a significant percentage of men and their handmaiden supporters, sadly.

DrSbaitso · 22/07/2023 13:02

NowItsLikeSnowAtTheBeach · 22/07/2023 12:35

That some men see it as hatethat they should be made to pay a nominal amount towards their own children, that women and the state do not owe them risk and consequence free sex, that women and the state should not be more responsible for their children and themselves than they are, is a sign of how deep the entitlement runs in these particular people.

Chillingly accurate about a significant percentage of men and their handmaiden supporters, sadly.

If it helps (it might not), then bear in mind that not everyone presenting as a woman on MN really is one.

FootieMama · 22/07/2023 14:01

Twentytwothousand · 22/07/2023 06:58

This is the best response to this question I have ever seen and I will quote it widely. It is not an equal situation at all, ever.

Show quote history

Yes, so we'll put!!!
@ aloris.
I've seen so many young women traumatised for having to an abortion. The decision process, the instinctive need to protect an unborn child even if everything in your life tells you that you can't have the baby. And then other completely different trauma if you decide to carry to term and put the up baby for adoption. Watching Long Lost Family you see story after story of mums who gave up their baby and spend all their life wondering if it was the right decision. It is never easy for women specially at the young age of the OP.

Original poster

Roses121 · 27/07/2023 20:21

They called me today to say they couldn’t trace him. 🙄
Kinda expected this based on my lack of info on him.
Turns out I may have given the wrong year of birth so updated that and they said they will look again. No mention of his previous employment, for some reason they aren’t interested in contacting them.
I really don’t want any drama especially since I’m going on holiday next week so refraining from messaging his so called ex.
Also haven’t heard a peep from him since all this. Not even messaged to ask how our son is doing or for photos. Nothing.

OP posts:

AndyMcFlurry · 27/07/2023 23:25

I’m sorry to hear this, it’s very disappointing. Both about the CMS and also that he cares so little for his child.

Do you think it’s possible that he’s deliberately given you the wrong information about himself?

BibbleandSqwauk · 28/07/2023 07:39

I'm sorry OP. Yours is a perfect example of how the idea of fatherhood appeals (asking you to keep the baby, being somewhat present for the look of things) but then running a mile from the reality. Please don't give up..it's the principle as much as anything else. From what you've written he had long standing hopes that you'd rekindle the relationship ...given the age gap no doubt imagined you'd "need" him but you've shown you are a capable and intelligent person who can stand on her own feet. But your child is entitled to support from their father. If any further communication is forthcoming all you can do is be calm and clear.

sunglassesonthetable · 28/07/2023 09:05

Sorry to hear that OP.

I have no experience of CMS so can offer no help on this other than I think the father of your child should be contributing.

I hope the new dob throws something up.

greenbeansnspinach · 29/07/2023 18:13

Child support are really good at not finding people when all the correct details have been given. They also sometimes triumphantly send the parent with care (the claimant) a letter announcing that the other parent is going to pay up ten years backlog of payments that they owe, when there’s a cats chance in hell they’ll ever pay a penny of it, something both parents and Child support are all perfectly well aware of.