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.

If governments were serious about making men pay for their children, they would have ensured it happened years ago.

The CSA have been in place for about 30 years now and still the majority of absent fathers pay nothing.

That has happened under both labour and conservative governments.

That tells me that neither of them are remotely interested in ensuring that men are forced to fulfil their financial obligations to their children.

They just don't care. Every now and then, they make noises. But they will never actually do anything, because they are on men's side against single mothers. They are scared that if mothers knew that fathers were forced to discharge their financial responsibilities, even more of us would choose to be lone parents sooner. The threat of poverty, is a huge disincentive to dumping an unsatisfactory husband and no government wants to take that threat away. After all, women might start divorcing men even more than they already do (the majority of divorce petitions are filed by women) and then the uppity bitches might start demanding some changes in workplace practices and equality in pay, so that they can work for money and be mothers at the same time. That would never do. Far better to push them back into the kitchen and leave the workplace to men, while excoriating the minority of single mothers who don't work in the cash economy because it's so bloody difficult to juggle work and (lack of) childcare.

I would much rather that the inland revenue dealt with them in the same way as they would for non payment of income tax

yes well said and the punishments for not paying should be the same.

DC could concentrate his efforts into sorting out the system so it is tied in with Tax and do all of us a favour instead of bleeting on about stigmatising a whole groups of people which will not in any way help or assist the children that need the flipping money.

Does any single mother really give a flying feck what people think of her ex when she is skint as her ex isn't paying his way for their children, surely she would rather a PM changed the system for a better one than started a feeling group to make these men feel bad about themselves

I really hate the way DC and the Tories drag marriage is brought into this(yet again harping on about tax breaks).

What has marriage got to do with anything?

Dads should play a big part in their children's lives.Unhappy married couples shouldn't be forced to stay married. Dads that aren't married to the mother of their children aren't dead beat dads. Marriage has nothing to do with fathering skills.

The father of my children has been my partner for 22 years,he isn't going anywhere and would win any fathering contest.

It isn't necessary to be married to be a good dad.I know plenty of shameful fathers that are married,plenty of amazing dads that aren't.Marriage and fathering are two different subjects,something the Tories keep forgetting.

Oh and while we're on the subject I know many very wealthy career men that are married and are dreadful fathers ie never there,cold ,putting their career first.

Even living with your kids doesn't make you a great dad.

No it's Dc that has got the two issues confused with his idea of "the family" and "rewarding commitment" in the tax system.

He speaks about how seeing his father get up at the crack of dawn taught him his values.. fine... great. But what about seeing mothers getting up at the crack of dawn to support their children? Fair enough, lots do. But lots don't.

But what about all the dads who have separated and work all hours to support their children and their ex partner who wish to continue live the life they had when they were married? Should they not be getting up at the crack of dawn working all hours to support the children too?! We don't know why a single mum is a single mum. I know good women who have been left in the lurch by arsehole men, but I also know women who are complete arsehole wives.. yet it's always the woman that's viewed as the poor helpless victim when the marriage breaks up and they are 'left'

He is right that society should reject those fecklass dads that we all know exist but he is, typically, being completely sexist and indeed Edwardian as his tone suggests that the financial burden of a family is all on the dad's shoulders. I wonder, does he favour the married couple where despite being complelety unfullfilled the man does his job of providing fiancially and the mother sits at home darning his socks equally unfullfilled but greatful for the cash. Utterly outdated.

There are shit parents and there are non shit parents. End of.

Saying that when you look at the words he has actually used I wonder has the newpaper twisted it slightly?
The £150 is utter bullshit. It's not going to persuade people of anything t all and will mean nothing to most family's pockets. Across all families however, £150 multiplied by god knows how much is going to cost us a hell of a lot of money that we don't exatly have!! I'd rather see carers get an extra £150 a year, or pensioners, or medically retired soldiers.. the list goes on.

Good post and points Mary.

Absolutely right isitreally. However, Cameron is getting in to the dicey business of telling us all what our moral code should be. If he's going to start on that route he needs to also highlight that it is the responsibility of every person who brings a child in to the world to ensure that child is financially secure.

It is still the case that a parent doesn't have to seek paid employment until their child reaches 7 years old... Why? Children start school at 4/5 and even from 3 they have assisted half day nursery placements. I'm not naive or idealist and I know that a job that fits in around school and nursery is like hens teeth, but I see no harm in making it compulsory for every person to at least prove they are seeking it, and applying for any position that does come up. Oh no, that wouldn't do though would it because then they'd pop up on his 'unemployed' list and he'd rather not suffer that.

I'm just saying that DC should be promoting a more responsible society in general and cover all the bases, if he thinks he is such an oracle on the matter of moral code. Rather than shunning 'absent fathers' as an entire group.

Also, Cameron is in the privaleged position that if he and Samantha separated, he could comfortably run two homes. Plus she works anyway and so could support herself.

Its not the same for a man who earns, say 20k a year, with a wife who prefers to stay at home with the children to working. If he wants to leave her (possibly with very good reason, we don't know their life) he now has to somehow support two households and a woman who society has told can go on unworking until her last child is 7 years old, and even then (despite being able to claim 80% of childcare costs) is still only obliged to seek 16 hours work a week.

He just doesnt have the first idea.

In most families the reason the mother stays at home is because the mother earns less than the father, childcare costs a fortune and it's a no brainer.

The very fact that she does, ensures that the father can work and forge ahead in his career, while her's stalls.

Even if she doesn't become a SAHM, most mothers downshift their career compared to their partner's because they are the contact person for the school when the kids are ill, they are seen as less committed by employers when they become mothers (in contrast with men, who actually get seen as more grown up and serious when they become fathers) and are paid less.

It's not an accurate representation to talk about women choosing to stay at home while men work. Firstly, the work women do at home may be invisible and unpaid, but without it society would grind to a halt. Secondly, it enables men to work - if they didn't have a wife at home to look after the children, they'd have to do it. Thirdly, most women if given a choice, would like to work and function as mothers but the workplace is structured to make that an extremely difficult thing to do, which is why so many eventually give up. Change the workplace and you'll find more mothers participating in it.

If you take the trouble to read what's actually being said, you'll see that it's in fact the opposite of what the op is implying. Feckless fathers are NOT being lumped together with Responsible ones. The whole point behind what Cameron is saying is to make the distinction- ie that people who take responsibility for their actions should be recognised for that, and people who don't take responsibility should be made to feel bad about it. How can anyone possibly argue with that? To expect 'the state' to pay instead of the fathers is feeding that total lack of care and responsibility. It's basically saying, ok, if you want to spend your earnings on yourself instead of facing up to your responsibility as a parent, thats fine, we'll just take the money out of the earnings of other parents. They can pay for their own families, and through their taxes , they'll pay for your too.

What on earth is 'right' about that?
The joke has gone on long enough- time for a reality check

I'm npot arguing with you reality, you're right. Men who go on to have extra children when they can't support the ones they have are utterly in the worng, and should be punished if they don't keep their payments up.

But how many women do we see continuin to have children with men who are on a low income, whilst not working themselves, and are unhappy in their marriage..? Then when the marriage breaks down the onus is on the man to provide, but not the woman.

As HerBex says, the reasons women stay at home after children are obvious (although thanks for explaining it herb )but this is just the status quo. It needs to change. I don't have the answer but personally, I had one child because I knew that my partner was never going to be the next alan sugar and so if ever the worst happened and he left (he did a year later) he wouldn't be able to support all 3 of us, and therefore certainly not me and 2 or 3 or 4 children.

It just won't do to have 3 children with a man on a lower wage and then have that man branded as feckless when he can't keep all of you in the manner to which you have become accustomed.

I know that isn't what always happens and often the woman will stay at home and look after the kids beleiving that as her husband earns a lot of money she would be supported if he left - only to discover that after leaving he goes self employed and pays his new girlfriend all his wages throgh the company leaving the ex with nothing blah blah blah... But that's not always the way.

Anyway, I'vre made my point. I think as a society we are all lacking in accepting responsibility for a lot of things, and that needs to change. Throwing £150 quid a year at married couples and making a few angry comments about group of men that David has not even the bearest understanding of what life is actually like for is so woefully underwhelming its laughable.

The reason nothing has been done before to give the CSA real teeth, the REAL reason, which no-one in power will ever acknowledge or discuss, is that the overwhelming majority of decision makers are men.

They just DON'T CARE. And not only do they really REALLY not care, they will also close ranks on this just because they are men and won't want to penalise their own sex. It just doesn't matter to them and it's probably too close to home for lot of them as well.

It would have been easy-peasy to enforce real sanctions such as attachment of earnings via the IRS. But successive Governments (Conservative AND Labour, it makles absolutely no odds whichever) have chosen not to do so.

This isn't about consipracy theories, it's simply a very clear example of what happens when the huge majority of MPs are men. They will always act in their own interests. I expect if we had a huge majority of women in Parliament they would do just the same.

100% right.

How dfficult would it be for David to pass a bill that money be taken just like tax directly from the absent parent's wages and put stright in to the parents bank account?

Oh of course it's in their interests.

And the state doesn't pick up the bill. 70% of lone parents with school age children have paid work. They are simply poorer than they would be if their children's fathers discharged their financial responsibilities. And of those who are on benefits, the children are living in dire poverty - that's not the state picking up the bill, it's the state picking up a tiny percentage of the bill and providing a safety net. The rest of the bill simply remains unpaid.

And I totally agree that it's because most MP's are men. If they were women, deadbeat dads would probably go to jail and quite right too.

Also it's bollocks to say that the onus is on men to provide, but not on women. By looking after children, woman are providing. They are a) doing a job which is quite well paid if you are a posh nanny and b) enabling the father of their children to work - if they didn't look after the children, the father would have to, no? That is a form of providing. Let's not pretend that all those men would rather stay at home with their kids and be paid a fiver a week maintenance from their ex wife's wage.

Applauds HerBex - again!

But of those 70% who work, how many work in 16 hour a week minimum wage jobs? The government has sent the standard for 'working' so low so as to cover up the truth of how many people there are who aren being supported by the state.

It is simply not true that all men couldn't work if they didn't have a stay at home partner. A lot of men would be more than happy to employ a childminder at the cost of only around £250 a month for 1 school age child. I have friends who stay at home to have the kids becuse their husbands earn a lot of money and work until 7pm or later so I'm not saying it never happens.

Obviously the men wouldn't prefer to stay at home. They get the benefit of a pension, financial independance etc etc. But why are women happy to do it then? knowing that if the family was split the man couldn't afford to, or wouldn't want to, support two households? Why go on to have 3 or more children with a man you're not happy with, when you have no career or money of your own...? Surely that is irresponsible and feckless too? Then to look up and say it's all the responsibility of these runaway dad's to pay for the whole family?

There's always a bigger picture. Of course Dad's should pay their maintenance, it should be taken directly from their wages and put straight in to the RP's bank account.

If DC wants NRdads to spend more time with and pay more maintenance for their kids then surely having a go at them like this will just drive them away?

My bro has a child with his exP who has refused access for long periods. He's spent tens of thousands on solicitors to get contact orders enforced or adapted to changing circs (she gets legal aid). He's now married to a selfish woman who would be quite happy for him not to see the child. I think in this case, having a go at him would completely end the relationship between father and child.

Should add that I've been very angry with him at times for going along with his wife's demands.

There are plenty of mothers who won't let their children see their dads. According to DCs logic, surely they should be socially ostracised too. But where are the children in all of this?

Agree with OPs that child maintenance should be dealt with the Inland Revenue.

Just a point that you mention marycorporate. It is very difficult to have a well paid career if you have dc and don't have a sahp or part time parent in a less well paid job. My job is well paid but I often have to be at our other offices across the country for 9am and don't get back till late. So last Tuesday I was out of the house from 6am till 8.30 pm. Without dp being a part time worker I would not have been able to do it, no childminder works those sort of hours.

I am female and my partner is male, with all our friends/family one always has a 'lesser' job or is part time to enable the other to work the hours you need to in a 'career'. Weirdly in my group its nearly all the women who have the main jobs and the men that have jobs that fit around.

That £250 for a childminder seems awfully cheap too. I pay £450 a month for a 3 day week for 1 dc.

About bloody time that men who walk away are brought to account.

And these poor men being stigmatised for not being there for their kids - well damn right they will. They can soon change that though if they want to. Simple.