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.

It's the PWC with the power and control and they can choose to use that to prevent or limit the NRP being involved - and that's what you'd be doing allnew. The court is only there to make an order when the two parties can't agree, and even then the PWC retains the control - they can breach orders, or play the order to their advantage.

The way I look at it luvv is that I could get all ranty and worked up about having no maintenance - and have no maintenance, or not let myself get bothered - and have no maintenance. I choose the latter (on the whole). The last thing dd needs is for her mum and dad to be fighting. I can't trust xh to not bring it up when dd is around and I think if I did make a huge issue of it then it would just polarise us, and that's not good for dd - she needs us to be getting on and being civil to each other.

Yes and because DH is such an easy target (always pays), he's in that group whose cases they focus on for an easy win. Every time she calls them (and that is often), they're straight on the phone to him. If cases like that weren't with the CSA they'd have so much more time to really focus on those that won't pay.

But he should pay Vibrant. Is he working full time ? If so you should get financial assistance, and if he gets ratty that's his problem, although I do understand totally where you are coming from. It won't polarise you, you won't be fighting him. You can still not get all bothered about it whle making a claim.

If he always pays why would the CSA call him?

Xenia - because he calls them on a regular basis trying to get more money. Just to annoy him, I think, as he has a stable wage and the enquiries never result in any changes

obviously meant "she calls them" rather than "he"!

I am going through the CSA. I was talking more about your suggestion to phone his place of work and try to shame him into doing something. Others are right, that would just make me look like a loon - and I'd turn into someone that I'm not, and actually in my particular circumstances, it would be resorting to the old pattern of him being totally unreasonable, but being able to wind me up to the point that I blew as a smoke screen. And I'm not that person any more, nor will I allow him to affect me like that.

And he, no doubt, would be painting a picture of how unreasonable I was to leave, how he's struggling and I've screwed him over - obviously missing out the bit where he's been left living in a fully functioning home, the hours available to work full-time and overtime, with a mortgage to pay that is less than lots of people on here say they spend on food per month. Poor thing .

Ahh...if you are going through the CSA then ok...and I wasn't advocating a Fatal Attraction type action....just a more restrained version.....along the lines of leaving a message like "Yeah, just let him know that we still haven't received the money and we've run out of food" . No hystrionics.....and believe me it does work.

You don't know my ex. It definitely wouldn't . Believe me, nothing is his fault and he justifies every action. He has never turned round to me and said "actually you're right". I am playing the long game.

LoL....well at least you're playing

I don't think there is SaF.

"Of course sometimes it suits the resident parent to do nothing so they can moan about what a bastard their ex is etc "

Do you actually understand how stupid that sounds? do you really honestly believe that the world is full of women who are poor, who would rather whinge about their exes, than receive money from them? Really? Would you do that? Are you judging other women by yourself? Or are you just totally brainwashed by mysogynist myths which say that on the whole, women really are hysterical, unreasonable loons who don't know their own minds and would rather cut their noses off to spite their faces than behave like a normal human being? Is your world totally and utterly peopled by Jeremy Kyle guests? Seriously I can't believe you even said such an extraordinarily bizarre thing.

Vibrant, I know exactly the kind of man you are dealing with, and you have my sympathy.

'I'm slating the court system for awarding power and control to women who can then mis-use that to the detriment of the children.'
I don't understand you here Allnew -- surely not every woman is going to do this? Surely there is no way for the courts to foresee what women are going to and which women are not?

And surely, given the fact that fathers who don't pay what they're supposed to pay constitute the vast majority of deadbeat parents, it is in fact men and not women who seem to have most of the control and the power, and misuse that to the detriment of the children? Because keeping a woman dangling waiting for that cheque, worrying about the rent or the food supply is a great way to thumb your nose at her. show her who is the boss. There are obviously no repercussions for the men involved, and since free legal aid is doled out on a measly scale most women have no recourse to the law to pursue their rights.

Every year I write to the CSA to ask them to pursue the money my ex owes me. At one stage I wrote to my MP who got involved and even that got no money out of him.

Nothing gets done. My xp has no employer I can shame him with as he is self empoyed technically (he doesnt' actually do much work, he lives off tax credits). I don't know his friends so can't ring them up and shame hiim and even if I could, I imagine that they have the same sort of values that he does, so that it wouldn't be shaming him, it would simply be making myself look like a loon.

His mum knows he doesn't pay maintenance so no point shaming him with her.

So am I not trying hard enough? The government now wants to charge me#100 for writing to the CSA. Seeing as how in 10 years, they've managed to extract about #20 in all from my ex, that looks like a really lousy investment to me. Is that a symptom of lazy mothers not trying hard enough, sitting on their arses not fighting for maintenance (because of course, that's what they should do, it's far too much to expect men to pay for their own flesh and blood without it being wrung out of them).

Fathers can behave as despicably as they like and some women will never condemn them, they will only ever condemn other women.

This 60% business, forgive me if it's already been covered.... but doesn't it relate to those under CSA? for example, my ex, for all anyone knows he doesn't pay me a penny. Bu twe have a private arangement. How is this 60% in any way representive of reality?

"funny how all the ex wives always are according to the new wives" no funnier than how the first wife is always according to what the first wife thinks she is.

swallowed I didn't call anyone 'evil' or a 'witch'. Clearly, however, you have either gleaned that impression yourself, or you feel it necessary to resort to childish language to make your (incorrect) point

swallowed your are talking in charactures now.
I came onto a thread about a speech DC made - which was not, unlike your parody, restricted to fathers who take no part in their childrens lives or pay nothing. The problem is that he did not restrict his speech to this group. He extended it much more widely, bringing into his definition fathers who, through no fault of their own, are denied the right to play an active part in a child's life

Now you've resorted to swearing

You do realise that there is a realm of opportunities between 50:50 access and nothing but the bare minimum, and spitting feather when access goes 1 minute over what is stipulated in the court. Or do you? Are you capable of understanding that, or are you just being obtuse?

I've already said what my thoughts are about fathers who do nothing. But you'd rather pontificate and swear about what I haven't said, rather than actually reading my posts

Anyway - I always say in RL that there's no point in trying to converse with someone who just resorts to swearing or deliberately making things up that haven't been said, so I don't see much point in doing so here either

"The problem is that he did not restrict his speech to this group. He extended it much more widely, bringing into his definition fathers who, through no fault of their own, are denied the right to play an active part in a child's life"

No, he didn't. Can you point to the bit of his speech that said all non resident parents should be conisdered beyond the pale?

Don't be silly this is mumsnet, everyone swears all the time.

HerBeX I didn't say that he said that "all non resident parents should be conisdered beyond the pale". I said that he brough into his definition fathers who, through no fault of their own, are denied the right to play an active part in a child's life"

For example - active part in education. Well, for example, DH's ex was able to withdraw the children from a very good school and instead enrol them in an underperforming one, closer to where her new lover lived. DH had no say in this. So active part in eduction therefore well out of the window. Similarly plays etc - DH's ex deliberately withholds information on these or, when DH contacts the school directly, buys the child's full allocation of tickets (generally 2), so DH can't attend, even when he has gone to lengths to find out about said play.

Similarly health. DSS had speech impediment. DH raised this with the school, who agreed there was a problem and that this had been raised with the mother. DH contacted ex to discuss, she said that was none of his business. DH contacted DSS doctor and made appointment to discuss. Doctor made referral to specialist. Ex cancelled appointments - repeatedly. Eventually DH manages to make appointment which is not cancelled. Ex attends - then refuses with further sessions are required. DH, as NRP, is unable to ensure DSS attends as ex refuses access outside of court stipulated hours.

Active part in health by NRP - not possible.

Again, you will claim this is extraordinary circumstances. I disagree - DH has sought health through various groups and forums and has encountered many, many men in similar circumstances.

So certainly, DH isn't able to play an active part as DC describes, through no fault of his own. And despite what you might like to think, DH is not alone in this situation.

Most fatheres help and pay. That's the bottom line.
Some choose to have no contact and some mothers (and some fathers) thwart contact.

Often what a patner says about an ex is lies and a lot of people realise that and take it with a pinch of salt.

I don't think there is senough shaming of parents who don't play a part in the lives of their chidlren. A mothers for justice in bat woman suits comapling about errant men has never happened because they are saddled with the chdilren whilst the men pontificate in costumes so the issue doesn't get an airing.