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.

luvvinlife as you say, it's about shared responsibility, though why you need to phrase this is such an aggressive manner I have no idea.

My rephrasing of your rant was a way of showing that what you considered jealousy on the part of the resident parent could easily be twisted to show avoidance of responsibility by an absent parent.

What goes on in your relationship is your own business, but when a couple separate, they still have a shared responsibility to the child that they created together.

In most cases, a child resides with one parent, the resident parent on a full-time basis and sees the other parent (the non-resident parent) for set amounts of time. If there is no contact, that non-resident parent then becomes an absent parent and is not not meeting their responsibility to that child.

No, cash isn't a childs right...responsible parenting however is.

I split with my hubby when DS was 2yr. It was my choice. I moved out ( I hear all this rubbish about the child(ren) being upset at moving home....believe me thats rubbish...losing a live in parent is far more traumatic). The CSA took 1/3rd of his net pay and gave it to me. I needed it but I know it crippled the ex and he worked all hours to make ends meet including weekend cash in habd jobs in pubs etc so he had very little time spare to spend quality time with his son...but he did make sure he saw him at least once a week for an hour or so. Anyway, a year or so later I met someone....after a while they moved in and we didn't need the ex's cash and as I was no longer on benefit I stopped taking money from him in exchange for him using the extra time to see his son. The end result was a very happy boy spending weeknds away with daddy that could afford to treat him etc. People said I was mad but they are the ones that were mad. They used to tell me to dob him in for working cash in hand at the weekends etc because I was entitled to a third of it etc..etc..etc.

Utter rubbish...putting the children first isn't always the same as putting the resident parent first, but look at these boards...all you read is " I deserve it" or "its my right".

Support isn't just cash, although if the absent parent refuses to pay then the law should some down on them hard and quickly, perhaps by making them pay more if they initially refuse, a bit like the guilty plea discount in reverse.

I'm confused, what are you arguing luvvin?

luvvunlife I am glad you have managed to find a workable balance between maintenance and contact, that's great. However, your XH is clearly not an absent parent. He is meeting both financial and caring responsibilities and as such is definitely not the kind of father this thread is about. I'm not sure how he is paying 1/3 of his income though as for one child the rate is 15% of net weekly income.

Furthermore, contact time is valued by our current CSA system, which reduces maintenance if the father has the child overnight more than once a week. I am quite happy to see a balance between contact and maintenance in cases where it is in a child's best interests.

However, an absent parent is not meeting any responsibilities in terms of contact so should be made to at least meet the financial responsibility.

I don't know who you are mixing with who has such inflated sense of entitlement, but it is clearly not representative of society in general, since 60% of women receive no maintenance off an ex partner full stop. Maybe the "I deserve it" comment is an understandably angry rant against that, since in lieu of that maintenance, the resident parent is sacrificing her own needs. I know that if my X paid maintenance that would be the difference between me being four years overdue an eye test because I can't afford it or the glasses.

The CSA old system was 1/3rd regardless of the number of children...and those caught up in that initially still pay that. They are not assesed under the new system.

I'm quite happy you think i'm not a woman SAF, if the bleating I've seen on here is representative, and I think you should read what has been said instead of reading what you imagine has been said.

If anyone has an ex that refuses to pay then presumably they are in work. Call his work, ask to leave a message, perhaps something like " Yes, its his ex wife wondering if he is ever going to pay anything towards the upkeep of his child". Phone up a couple of times a week, different departments, branches, areas...it doesn't matter, just spread it about where you know it will make him uncomfortable. Shame them, be proactive, don't expect other people to do it for you all the time.

luvvin....you seem awfully naive. So many men walk away from their families without a second thought.

SAF, might. But then why do you think you were entitled to live in a home funded by him ? How much of that was what you wanted compared to what your child needed ? If 15% of his net salary would have made all that difference then he must be earning a fortune so chances are your house is larger than your new circumstances required.

Well actually people who are bringing up children do deserve financial support from the other parent who isn't doing quite so much of that bringing up. Either bring your kid up yourself or pay for someone else to do it.

And if you're happy to have a McDonald's dad, to have your child taken out and treated and nothing but treats, that's up to you if it works for you because you too can afford to treat your child and take them out; but please don't tell women who can't afford to pay for their child's electricity use, who aren't getting a penny of maintenance, that they should be grateful that a non-paying dad is using his economic resources to buy a child's affection by taking him to legoland and having nothing but treats. That's not parenting, that's disgusting behaviour IMO.

You pay for your child's basic needs before you pay for the treats and if you're using the fact that you're not paying maintenance, to spend the money on having a whale of a time at the weekend while the parent who is doing most of the parenting is struggling to meet the child's basic needs, then you are scum IMO. Obviously that's not the case with you and your XP, because it's an arrangement that you're happy with and you aren't in the position of financially struggling to meet your children's basic needs; but please don't tell other women that this is an ideal arrangement and they should be grateful for it; it doesn't work for families who are financially struggling.

You ain't read a word have you.

Pointless.

Yes, I have read it.

I disagree with you.

Disagree with what ?

Absent parents should pay ?...I've said they should and have suggested ways to penalise them into paying more if they fail to step up ...and how to shame them into having to cough up.

Saying a child has a right to responsible parenting ?.....hmm...can't be that one.

Now I am lost, but then having read the last sentence of your message that bears no resemblance to anything I've said I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Luvvin....I am genuinely confused as to what you object to.

Your tone is angry and yet you seem to agree with what most posters are saying.

I disagree with your characterisation of the assumption that NRP's pay maintenance, as jealousy and unjustified entitlement.

luvvin you are placing all the responsibility for collection of maintenance on the resident parent, who already has all the responsibility for the child so is least well placed to have the resources to follow this through. In doing so you are absolving the non-resident parent of any responsibility. Shouldn't he be paying it because it's the morally right thing to do for his child?

It would be simple to ensure absent fathers paid if the CSA could automatically enforce attachments of earnings and cross-reference with national insurance numbers the way tax credits do. There simply isn't thr will.

There is no legal comeback for NRPs who don't pay. They are not prosecuted even if the resident pursues the case. If she phones up his work (even presuming she has the number, bearing in mind that they are separated) he is likely to accuse her of being mad stalker ex and have her calls barred. I suspect people like you would be very willing to believe that too, given your attitude towards 'bleating' on here.

SaF doesn't need anyone to speak in her defence, but as you don't know anything about her life, your response is highly inappropriate and downright rude. She didn't mention expecting her XP to pay for all of the mortgage, simply a proportion of it, since that home is also his child's home and she is spending her own money on feeding, clothing and otherwise meeting the needs of their child. How on earth can you imply that she is greedy for asking for a contribution towards his own child?

Yes you can imagine the way a woman would be talked about if she did the "mad ex-wife stalker" act.

And how long is she supposed to do this for?

It really isn't a very dignified way to behave is it? Are you seriously saying that this should be a normal way for 60% of resident parents to behave all the time?

I agree there is no will, perhaps because taxpayers in general are happy to step in and take up the slack. But where there's a will there's a way. Apparently there are resources and resolve enough in some parts of the world to deal with this problem. Of course the US is not the UK, and Sheriff Tom Dart is an elected official, and most of the 1.7 million owed will not be recovered, but presumably wages can be attached henceforth for the men involved in this story.

And obviously keeping track better and attaching wages in the first place would mean stings would be unnecessary.

No SAF, I merely did to you what you did to me....ie: I made a daft assumption.

Yet again all I can see is reasons why you all want to moan instead of doing something about it. You want non payers vilified yet won't phone their work or cause hassle as you fear being seen as a mad ex. What crap.

"Well actually people who are bringing up children do deserve financial support from the other parent who isn't doing quite so much of that bringing up. Either bring your kid up yourself or pay for someone else to do it"

Whatabout when the NRP wanted residence of the child, or at least 50:50, but because of the prejudice in the court system got awarded a paltry 1 eve a week + every other weekend. Paying someone else to 'bring up' the child when you wanted to do it yourself, for example? The choice you illustrate doesn't actually exist in real life

You do rather sound like a Jeremy Kyle viewer.

It's not that we'd rather not be seen as mad exes (we probably are anyway) it's that we're not mad exes and have better things to do with our lives than pretend to be a character from Eastenders. Your advice just sounds mad. Are you here on a wind up, or do you actually think that this is a feasible solution to the fact that so many men think it's OK not to pay for their children?

Do you think the Inland Revenue should use the same tactics for nonpayers of tax? Or do you think they should just use the power of the state to ensure that citizens do what the law requires them to?

Actually it does exist in RL.

Men who want 50 50 residence on divorce, should do 50% of the childcare during the course of the relationship. Then they'd get it.