Absent fathers to be made into scape goats

[ivykaty44]

absent fathers

as a single mother who has lived without maintenence for periods of time and at times struggled to make ends meet I still think it is awful to suggest making a group of people stigmatised.

there are good NoneResidentParents and there are useless NRP, it isn't just absent fathers but sometimes absent mothers. What sort of country do we live in thuogh where we would want to stigmatise a whole group of people.

Better to keep the CSA free and make it work rather than the clerical mess it is at the moment.

Good for you sheep - you want to see them more and there are reasons why you don't.

My point was that it is the minimum any parent can do to see and pay for their DC. I am sure you don't expect praise for it - I hear men being praised for seeing/contributing towards their DC all the time. I rarely hear people praising LP's for their commitment and daily sacrifices.

UMMM, difficult one.

On one hand as a parent raising a child alone with no emotional, pratical or financial support from the father I want to agree with him.

Then he starts saying why thats what he plans to do re married couples tax - er how does that help LP???

The only thing that's going to affect the current problem (i.e. those who have abandoned our children) is drastic action.

Reforming society is going to take decades. Cameron's speech doesn't even apply to our generation of children (even when they are of an to conceive) so most of this conversation is rendered hypothetical at best.

I'll be marginally impressed when they actually seriously penalise absent parents NOW and stop skirting around the issue or telling us their plans for the future. Yes, we all care about the future but what about our children, here and now!

*age able to conceive

RobF. Presumably, you have a mother?

Personal experience but I'm not actually acquainted with any families where the mother walked out (although I do know two where the mum has died - and that brings big confusions with benefits etc - and one where the mum put her son in a very expensive boarding school and never goes to see him) but I do (sadly know) several where the dad left as soon as he knew there was a baby on the way and tried very hard to avoid any sort of responsibility whatsoever. Mothers do leave, and there are fathers who want to play their part and the mum is obstructive of course, but I'd bet in the majority of cases the father is the one wanting to avoid being a parent. I'm with DC on this. Once you read what he said amid the media spin.

But herbex i feel that you are contradicting somewhat.. You say that many women stay at home to look after the children and don't earn money and should be able to continue doing so once they seperate from their partner because it's not her fault that she did the stay at home bit and he did the career bit... therefore he should compensate her.

But then you say that the most basic and important aspect of showing your love for your children is to make sure they are supported financially...

Which is it?

I agree with the second statement entirley.

With divorce statistics as they are, unless I had to care for a disabled child, or if I found myself with triplets (= massive childcare costs) I simply wouldn't have 3 children whilst in a less than 100% secure and happy marriage as it would mean that should we split, the father wouldn't be able to support 2 households.

That's not looking in to a cyrstal ball, it's looking at what is all aorund you, looking at what your husband earns, and thinking - hang on, this doesn't add up.

The number of people who have asked me why my ex doesnt pay me more than £200 a month (CSA guidline and perfectly sufficient to provide financially for half of my child's needs) I point out that on 25k a year if he paid me more than £200 how would he afford his own rent (including a room for when DD stays) food, bills, a car to fetch her in and to get to work, and some kind of a decent lifestyle... they are flabberghasted, err he's a human being that i happened to have a child with.. not my own personal meal ticket!

marycorporate, that is a completely disingenuous 'misunderstanding'. I don't think anyone else has trouble understanding what HerBex means. I certainly don't.

The point is that in your first scenario the mother has practical responsibility for the child but does not pay financially. In the second scenario the father has neither practical nor financial responsibility. The mother is contributing something (care), the father isn't. And while the mother may not be earning while on benefits, she is spending the money that she receives on her child, and the vast majority will make personal sacrifices out of that money for their child's sake. The non-paying father is not. It's quite simple really.

I also think it's a mistake to get sidetracked into the "what about absent mothers" debate. They do exist and they also deserve shame but 92% of single parents are women. That's one hell of an overwhelming majority.

Furthermore, I have yet to meet one genuine case in my own life where a mother has refused a father access to a child purely out of spite. I'm not denying they exist because the spectrum of human nature being what it is, it is bound to. However, again, they are a minority. Most single mothers I know would bite their XPs hands off for some extra contact and some time off.

OTOH I have come across quite a lot of men who claim the mother has stopped them from having contact. They often sound very plausible too and come across as nice guys. When you probe a bit deeper however, you often find that what they mean is they turned up when they felt like it, refused to commit to a schedule, often let down the child and messed up the mother's plans. When she then insisted on setting a firm schedule, because she is fed up of seeing the disappointment on her child's face, the father accuses her of being inflexible and unco-operative. If he then has to miss contact because he's arranged something else on that day, it suddenly becomes the mother 'blocking contact'. The point is that if he was reliable and consistent in the first place, most resident parents (who are desperate for a bit of time to themselves) would be more than willing to be flexible on the few occasions where something came up.

Then you get men like my XP, who was violent towards our DC, who has supervised contact only but prefers to go round telling people he can't see his DC because I won't let him. He puts on tears and everything. Of course, I'm stuck in with no money and all the responsibility so I can't inform anyone any different (plus I don't care what other people think and I don't want to go to the pub all the time).

The point is, whatever contact arrangements are or are not in place, whatever has happened between the parents, whoever is right or wrong, the children are blameless and have the right to their parent's support financially, practically and emotionally.

Is that true? 60%? How do they get away with it?

gerrin I've been having the debate about 60% on another thread. The figure is taken from a DWP study that Gingerbread refers to here. Theresa May signed is signed up to various Gingerbread initiatives so the figure seems to have government endorsement.

It's shocking isn't it. Yet whenever it is mentioned the main reaction seems to be disbelief rather than "poor children". Even 25% would be 25% too many IMO, especially when the government could so easily crack down on it.

Sadly, I think this government tries to encourage couples to stay together by making being a single parent so difficult. They would do far better to look at the reasons why couples break up in the first place.

sunshine I didn't misunderstand herbex, I said what she had said was contradictary, which it is.
I am surprised that you haven't seen many mothers denying fathers the access they want. I personally know of 3 women who make sure they have their child more than the dad in order to be able to claim maintenance from them. They have each told me that it is in the interest of the child as it means that they get more money coming in... personally I think it would be in the interest of the child to see mum out working to provide and to see their dad more but sadly access and maintenance are very much interlinked often.

How many non working mums on here who receive maintenance would let their child spend 50/50 time with their ex if it meant they received no maintenance but the child got to build a strong relationship with dad..?

If the dad was that keen on having a 50/50 relationship with his child, why didn't he do so before the relationship broke down? Indeed, maybe the relationship wouldn't have broken down if he'd more involved in the first place. I'll turn what you said to me about women denying the father contact to get more maintenance back on you: Funny how so many men suddenly decide they want to see more of their children when they realise they could pay less maintenance as a result. Personally I'm inclined to believe the person who spent most time looking after the child's welfare before the parents separated.

Personally, if my XP wasn't abusive, I would love to let him have 50/50. It would give me much needed spare time and allow me to pursue the career I have had to sacrifice in being a LP. But then if he hadn't been abusive maybe I wouldn't have left him...

Marycorporate it's only contradictory, if you believe that caring for children has no economic value.

I think it's pretty obvious that when women stay at home to look after children, that in of itself has an economic value. Not least, that by them doing that, they enable the father to work. They are financially supporting their children by enabling the other partner to work - a couple are an economic union, not two individuals. Or at least, they are in normal functional relationships.

There is a great reluctance to see domestic labour as having any economic value, because in the fabulous institution of 'the family' it has no financial value; mothers aren't on an hourly rate from husbands or the state, so their work doesn't count. But if their labour vanished, the financial and therefore economic value of their work would be paid to the replacement workers.

"Yes, RobF, women should be able to see into the future. Every woman should be equipped with a crystal ball. That way a woman would know for certain that marrying and having children with Mr Right would be the wrong move. That way, women would be able to predict domestic violence and completely avoid it; they would be able to foretell the arrival in their lives of OWs. It would all be so simple. Why the heck can't women just predict the future when they decide to have children?"

I'm not talking about domestic violence. I'm talking about women kicking men out just because "they don't like them anymore" or other spurious reasons, despite the fact that there are kids involved.

My mum died 25 years ago, not that that has anything to do with this topic.

Women never kick men out just because they don't like them anymore.

The punishment for doing so, is too high, to kick a man out just because you don't like him. Most women put up with men they don't like for years. They only kick them out, when the punishment of poverty and stigma, is more tolerable than living with the men.

And it's silly to say that you're not talking about domestic violence. 1 in 4 women experience DV so that accounts for an incredibly large percentage of break ups. You can't talk about break ups, without mentioning DV IMO.

"Women never kick men out just because they don't like them anymore."
Bullshit. It happens all the time. Women get together with men thinking that they can change them, then act astonished when they can't.

What are spurious reasons for throwing a man out, Rob?

A minor tiff.

LOL, do you have any research to back up your statement Rob, or is your opinion based on common stereotypes?

LOL
You know lots of mothers who throw out the fathers of their children over a minor tiff do you?

And there's research to back up your opinion that that's a common occurrence, and not just peculiar to your social circle?

Do I have any research? No. I'm not doing a dissertation on it. It's just what I have learnt from experience, both my own and that of people I know.

Oh dear
You do realise that your own experience and prejudice isn't necessarily a reliable guide to the way the world is?

Bless.