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.

and women get maternity leave, so it seems engineered for women to become the main carer.

Exactly! If men want to spend more time being with their children, why aren't they fighting for paternity leave?

Truck. How is that anecdotal? If ost men wanted to spend more time with their children most men would be actively campaigning for it. I'm not seeing many headlines or political lobbying to that effect, are you?

When people seperate the expectation is the children should live with their Mum, it is what society considers normal.

I suppose it's difficult to get people to think and act away from what is considered the norm.

When people seperate the expectation is the children should live with their Mum, it is what society considers normal.

Yes, again because before separation it will be the mum doing the bulk of childcare.

Childcare is not all about time spent either, it's about remembering and organising things - who has a playdate and when/where, whether the uniforms are ready, packed lunches done, permission slip signed, dentist appointment made (and time taken out to do it) etc etc. Show me a man who does those things more than his partner and I'll show you a man much more likely to get primary residency or 50/50, though quite often the relationship is stronger in the first place precisely because the man is doing these things.

Fortunately for me I married a feminist. I was educated to do my share, and when we separated we shared care.

So that?s the answer marry a feminist!

Well I actually agree with you there.

There are no biological reasons why a father can't make just as good a primary carer as the mother. The reason it doesn't happen that often is because of cultural norms.

sunshine literally laugh out loud at "you know he could have contested it don't you" His DD was 7 years old at the time and even now at 12 isn't going to be happy to live with her dad when her mum constantly pleads with her not to as if she left her mother would be destitute and would have to leave the country to go and live with family abroad.
Also, because the mother was the main carer while they were married (dad as I explained was having to miss out on his child to work all hours to support the family) no court would grant him custody. He could have taken it to court and seen his DD's heart broken but he didn't really see that as an option, so he continues to work 45 hours a week, with his DD living with us for half the week, supporting her while she's with us, then supporting his ex wife as well as she'll only work 16 hours a week. and all the while suffering the guilt and stigma of being 'an absent father' 'the one who chose to break up the marriage'

truck "Neither parent give up the career and both reduce their hours and share child-care seems to me the way forward" this is the most sensible thing I have read in a long time.

mary If your partner's DD is living with you for half the week then he's hardly an absent father is he. Sounds very much like you do have 50/50 shared care to me!

There are lots of reasons men choose to lose contact or not contribute (my children's father is in this category and he did do 50/50 when we were married as we both worked full time). It certainly is better all round if both parents pull their weight.

mary if the mother of your DSD is that manipulative and emotionally blackmailing her DD to such an extent, she is not really a fit parent. Rather than allow the status quo to continue (which tells your DSD that emotional blackmail is a powerful weapon and that it is acceptable for her to bear the brunt of her mother's emotional neediness), isn't that a reason to fight for residency? To remove DSD from such a toxic environment? Emotional abuse is a valid reason for SS to remove children from families and they carry a huge amount of influence when it comes to residency arrangements.

Ultimately, I don't know the first thing about you or your family, I have no right to tell you what to do, and so I shall stop talking about your personal set-up. Furthermore, it does not help this debate because your set-up is not remotely reflective of the norm - which is a working single mother who does not receive any maintenance.

we do, but he would prefer more than 50/50.

I know sunshine i did apologise for letting my personal situatiion affect my opinion. I was just making th epint really that the image of the poor deserted woman with no money isn't always the full picture. That's all.

I agree with sunshine it riles me when men go on about how the courts are biased to mums no their biased towers children, it crazy a man thinks he can get custody when before the split they only just caught glimpse of their child on the way to bed, did almost nil childcare at the weekends

Many mums still have to ask their oh if they will babysit if their going out I doubt any man asks his wife if she can babysit.

And actually as more woman choose careers over their children their has been be it a small rise in dad getting custody

I am yet to here of a stay at home dad who looses custody to his wife who works 50 hours a week

I've never met a SAHD, I thought they were a myth.

But I don't know anyone who has been a sahm either.

There are 250,000 stay at househusbands in the UK.

There was an artilce in the FT a few years back interviewing couples where the fathers didn't work and the mother worked full time and the chilren stayed with the father after the break down of the marriage. It is not that unusual. It's the risk you take whatever your gender if one of you works and one doesn't. It's a very risky thing to do (let your other half stay home) if you love your children and would never want them not to live with you.

Given the UK population of more than 61 million people, and that children account for approximately one fifth of that number (so about 12 million children), 250,000 SAHDs seems a very small proportion to me, though it's massively up on what was the case 20 years ago I'm sure.

Xenia, actually what does happen in your case? You earn 10 x what your ex does, but surely he should still contribute something to his children.....I'd be very interested to know.

Genuinely, I mean.

maypole1 - yes of course my DP asks whether it's OK with me if he wants to go out in the evening/at the weekend, leaving me with the children. And of course I also check with him when I want to go out (and I go out in the evening on my own more often that he does). But it isn't "babysitting".

Porto - I seem to remember from previous threads that actually xenia had to pay her exH maintenance, or some financial contribution anyway. Because she earnt so much more than he did.

We had a clean break so I don't pay him continuing maintenance and he works full time and is a higher rate tax payer. The agreed court order says the one the children live with pays for them (they live with me) and that whoever they live with I pay school and university fees. You can always go the CSA and get x% of net earnings but presuambly not a % of what he earns in interest on the capital sum I paid him even if you have a court order saying otherwise but the % now only 2 of the children are under 18 (20%) would not really be big enough to upset the apple cart and over turn the order. He pays nothing. Although very occasionally they have asked for something which I would estimate would tolta about £3k for all 5 over 8 years which is £75 a year per child I suppose. It is certainly possible that if more were asked for he might pay. All he is doing is reflecting the court order and the law and English law is very unfair to higher earners.

Portofino... it is often the case that a man earns 10x what the wife does and pays maintenance but the mother contributes nothing to the child financially.. so if it were the case with Xenia and her ex... why would that be strange? Other than because he's the man and we all seem to beleive that to contribute financially is what they are here for.
If she has heaps more money, and he is having contact with his children (i.e. pulling his weight emotionally) then why should he give her money?

and maypole i don't know what kind of people you're mixing with but in my circle the women ceratianly don't ask their partners to 'babysit' and the men certainly don't just wander off out without checking that their partner is ok to be with the children. I realise that does happen (and probably too much!)

Also, please point me in the direction of a woman who has 'chosen her career over her children' what would that involve exactly?

I never said it WAS strange. I was just interested.

"it is often the case that a man earns 10x what the wife does and pays maintenance but the mother contributes nothing to the child financially"

This is bollocks. Looking after children and enabling the other partner to work, is a contribution in itself, it is not "nothing" financially, economically or anyother way. If the child was not looked after by the wife, then the husband who earns 10x more, would have to pay someone else to look after the child or do it himself.

I am astonished by how many women buy the lie that our unpaid labour is not a valuable economic contribution, to society and to our families and relationships. You can bet your bottom dollar that once men start doing it en masse, there will be no more talk about it being worth "nothing".

It's not bollocks HerBex, I said that in the scenario the man would be 'pulling his weight emotionally' but the woman would be earning all the money. Thats just an opposite scenario to the SAHM, working dad situation.

Children need money first and formost and while it is fine if you choose to stay at home with your kids while your partner works because you want them to have mum at home.. at the end of the day children won't die without that, where as they will if there's no food on the table and roof over the head. Hence, when couples separate the earner still needs to contribute financially. Accept that they are then also required to have the children half of the time too (and lots happily do this) so now they're contributing financially (the necessary bit) as well as half of the emotional work...

I know you have repeated it a hundred times but I just don't for the life of me understand this "enabling the other partner to work" business, my ex partner worked, and so does my current partner.. I have never needed to do anything at home to 'enable them to do this'

I didnt say being at home with children was worth nothing. But it doesnt bring any money in to the house. Unless, you ave say 3 children and they're all pre-school age. In which case the childcare costs will be more than you could earn and so by looking after them at home you are saving the family money.