To think that men who evade paying for their children are a burden on society?

[ASimpleLampoon]

Not my situation as not divorced but I'm fed up of hearing about thousands of men who don't pay child support or only pay the minimum, or fiddle their employment status/ declared income to pay less

They should pay at least half the actual costs of raising their children, more if they earn significantly more than the other parent

If they can't pay they should be supported to get a better job

If theyre self employed and can't pay enough well get a job that allows you to pay.

If they're getting paid in cash, take on more work to pay or find a job where they can't hide their income so they have to pay.

They are the real burden on society , fed up of seeing disabled people and carers torn apart while these feckless men get away with it year after year.

Where is the government and media campaign against them?

Those pesky women taking time off work to laze around with their kids, eh!

The fact is having kids is expensive. It’s a very adult choice to have them. If you can’t afford them don’t have sex or at least wear a condom. What’s wrong with condoms.

If as a 19-year-old male you are too much of a child to take responsibility you are too young to have sex.

Women do work and raise kids but some time is needed for looking after then and that’s usually where some sort of career compromise is needed the father steps in and makes a contribution. There are TWO parents. At the very least a contribution to childcare costs is needed.

Very few women walk away from their kids and don’t support them. Of course there are horrible cases of criminal neglect which are heartbreaking. But many men simply abandon their kids knowing the mum will look after them.

Spoken as a woman with a decent career and academic qualifications, who was married for a long time and waited to have a family and then was eventually left to raise the kids alone.

Depends on the circumstances, quite a lot of women encourage an absolutely toxic dynamic between Father and child. They will deliberately obstruct, frustrate and deny contact.

You could argue that a "good" Father would still make sure their child was looked after financially, but if they never see the child, have no idea what the money is being spent on, then perhaps it's not so binary.

You do realise that Mothers could also give full custody to their child's Father, and then the Mother could go to work and pay Child Support.

Why don't you advocate for that?

So many male apologists here but women are doing their bit. The birthrate is plummeting :). Sure there are feckless women but mostly they take care of the children. Both parents need to care for and provide financially for the kids, if one is doing all the care then another needs to do all the financials. Ideally they’d be a split.

But women are allowed to opt out of motherhood, but men are forced to take responsibility even if they don't want a child.

Is that fair?

Men also baby trap women not only putting her health at risk but adding in an extra burden of care. Neither is right of course but this often not mentioned in these threads.

Personally I’d like to see the mothers who withhold their kids in order to get more cm suffer the consequences of those actions. Not to mention the mothers who alienate their kids from the father as an act of revenge.

Also the mothers who prefer to sponge off the fathers of their kids and the taxpayer rather than get an actual job, even when the kids are at school full time.

There was a thread on here recently from a mum who had 50/50 yet was trying to get maintenance from her ex on the basis he earned more. She got her arse handed to her and rightly so.

The problems are on both sides.

This is the elephant on the thread but expect to get a lot of challenge to this. It’s not acceptable on here to raise this

How are men trapped? Are they raped?

The money is being spent on keeping the child alive, fed, warm, clothed. If there is a genuine case of a parent receiving child support while their child lives naked on a park bench, foraging for berries - then a discussion about whether payment is being spent well can ensue (after the child is removed by social services obviously).

But in every other case, child support is a reimbursement for costs already incurred by the resident parent for keeping their shared offspring alive and well.

If the kids are at full time school, the parent would be required to work or face heavy benefit sanctions/caps.

Yes, but there is no guarantee that the money is being spent for the child's benefit.

Unless the child is horribly neglected the money is being spent for their benefit. Do absent fathers understand the real costs of raising a child? Providing a warm home, clothes, school equipment, food, shoes - just for a start? Maybe childcare so the mum can work? Of course they must realise that costs but they choose not to recognise it. If a man is truly reckless he need only pay £7 a week towards his child. Try feeding and clothing a kid for that.

If the child is fed, clean, clothed and in a warm house the it's safe to say the money is being spent on the child.

No, it isn't.

Do you know how money and buying things works?

You use money to purchase things like clothes and food.

You should get money for your child by claiming CMS which, hopefully, should be deposited in your bank account.

You then use the money from your account to buy clothes for your child, and food for your child, and pay for clubs or childcare or activities for your child or any one of the million other expenses that come alongside having a child.

Therefore the CMS money is being spent on the child assuming the child is living a comfortable life with all the essentials.

I don't think I can make it any more simple:

IF THE CHILD HAS A ROOF, FOOD & CLOTHES THE RP HAS ALREADY PAID OUT FOR THESE.

The contribution from the NRP is a reimbursement for these already incurred costs.

As I already said, if the child doesn't have access to these necessities, then the NRP should take custody of the child themselves and seek CMS themselves.

And even if the RP (mother usually) is a millionaire the NRP should contribute because they are the other parent! It takes two.

Neither men or women need to be raped to be trapped. Though I recognise in some countries tampering with birth control is considered rape I.e stealthing. Tampering with her birth control pills etc etc Far more consequences for the woman though and less societally acceptable to walk away.

I don’t know if still in place under the new child support service but the CSA did used to have the powers to take non paying parents to court to remove/suspend driving licenses or to impose fines and prison sentences etc, however I don’t think these powers were much used if at all. What is the point in having them if they not enforced???!!

They do still have those powers.

They can do loads of things. They just don't as there's no political will for them to do so

Where is the government and media campaign against them?

It's focused on criticising single mothers and the children growing up in poverty reliant on benefits.

They should be jailed.

I’m pretty fed up that this has had posts about how money isn’t being spent on children, a few pops about benefits, claims that children shouldn’t be paid for if they aren’t being seen (so now it is pay per view) and how nasty women trap all these men.

It may well be a few women, but on the whole it’s men, of which my exh is one, and if you think I’m somehow living a life of Riley on benefits then dream on.

I didn’t have children alone and I didn’t have them to claim benefits. If my ex paid then I would not need to claim as with my wage I have enough

This attitude is hilarious. Many, many women would quite happily allow their children more time with their fathers. They don’t want it.

Yep, I couldn't pay my ex to spend more time with his kids. He has them from 12.30 until 3.30 on a Sunday. Often back early. Never expressed any desire to see them overnight, or for longer periods of time. Has flatly refused when I've asked for him to take them on occasions over the years.

My ex wouldn’t compromise on contact arrangements last Christmas because his time with his girlfriend was more important. He will only have our children when she has hers. There must be no deviation or overlap. This is presumably so they can maximise their shagging childfree time.

i should say, that MANY men don’t want any more contact with their kids. Not all. And sometimes what they say is different to what they do. My ex would probably tell anyone who would listen that he wants more time with our kids.

As someone mentioned upthread many simply see the kids as an extension of the woman they’re sleeping with.