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.

HerBex - I'll say again, I haven't called anyone a 'bitch'. It is you that are absolutely insistent on continuing to use this terms to describe women. I havn't done so once.

"Are you really going to argue that the media portrayal of single mothers is positive" - where on earth did I say that? You seem totally insistent on making stuff up. Isn't a rational conversation sensationalist enough for you or something? We're not in a competition you know for best headline-grabbing statement of the week

"I'm genuinely interested - in which media/in what form are resident parents portrayed as bitches? I'm well aware (though I don't watch it!) that by all accounts Tracy Barlow isn't supposed to be the nicest person, but I'm assuming you're not basing that opinion purely on soapland (where they're all nuts and appear to murder eachother on a regular basis)"

OK so that says to me that you live in a bubble where apart from in soapland, there are no negative portrayals of lone parents.

You are totally unaware of the history of stigma associated with lone motherhood.

If I'm misinterpreting that post, feel free to correct me. But what are you trying to say there? That there's no such thing as stigma and negative portrayal of single parents in the media? Or what?

As I say I think you are being very disingenuous. And I notice you didn't respond to Flicka's post.

And I haven't said that you've called anyone a bitch.

I don't believe for a second that you're "genuinely interested" in the nuts and bolts of this debate. This is a thread about the non payment of maintenance and whether that should be stigmatised and almost single handedly you've turned it into a discussion about lone parents, with particular reference to your least favourite one.

bb, a parent could operate a 3 strikes and you're outg deal though, explain i n writing how they organise their life, need baby sitters, lose income, free time if the other person is late or does not turn up, that they want however to encourage contact and that if they do not turn up or are 30 mins late or early for the next 3 times then they will not have contact for the next 3 planned times. Given mothers are never jailed for not allowing contact it would work and it would help ensure teh child was not disappointed either so everyone benefits.

"OK so that says to me that you live in a bubble where apart from in soapland, there are no negative portrayals of lone parents.

You are totally unaware of the history of stigma associated with lone motherhood.

If I'm misinterpreting that post, feel free to correct me. But what are you trying to say there? That there's no such thing as stigma and negative portrayal of single parents in the media? Or what?"

I asked a genuine question, to which I naively expected a rational response, rather than nastiness. I didn't say there was not stigma. I very specifically asked a question about lone parents being portrayed as bitches. Instead of answering this, you're now ridiculing me and just being plain nasty.

Piece of advice - if you really want to further your cause, then for goodness sake when they ask questions focus on answering instead of jumping down their throat.

I think most RP's are perfectly reasonable about stuff like traffic etc. making people late - if you're running late and you text to say so, if you don't continually piss people about, people can cope with the occasional change of day, time etc., it's not a big deal.

It's when it used as a constant, low level war of attrition, that it becomes a real issue. And it's damaging to children to be let down on a continual basis, it tells them very clearly that they're at the bottom of the priority list.

This isn't just a thread about non-payment of maintenance

You didn't ask a genuine question allnew.

No one who lives in Britain and is an adult, is unaware of the stigma and negative portrayal surrounding lone parenthood.

It's like claiming to be unaware of racism.

"I'm really genuinely interestd - do you really think that the media portrays black people more negatively than white people? Can you tell me exactly how and where?"

Doesn't sound very genuine does it? Sounds like a racist in fact. So what are you, asking that sort of question about the portrayal of lone parenthood?

How can I possibly have a discussion single-handedly? or even almost single-handedly? I'd be talking to myself then, surely?

But the question wasn't about stigma, it was about lone parents being portrayed as 'bitches'

Maybe if you didn't replace other peoples' words with your own and use tabloid speak to articulate your points, you wouldn't have got confused on this point

I'm not confused allnew.

Have actually just had a moment of clarity about you and your agenda.

Herbex, I'll ignore your childish ill informed insults and instead ask you a simple question.

If your ex is unemployed and getting tax credits then how much do you think he should be paying you ?

Well, something would be nice.

How much do you think he should be paying me, luvvinlife?

"Given mothers are never jailed for not allowing contact it would work and it would help ensure teh child was not disappointed either so everyone benefits"

I am afraid that is not true

Which bit isn't true? They may have jailed one mother once but it is not the norm which means there isn't really much of a penalty at all if you simpyl choose never to allow what the court orders for contact (as taking the child and giving to the other parent in consequence is usually seen as too radical a step).

Funnily enough, they've never jailed a father for not turning up for contact, not even once. It's never even been discussed as an option. Or for maintenance non-payment. Why's that, I wonder....

Yes they have.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/more-fathers-jailed-over-child-support-2265787.html

The odd deviation from the terms of a contact order may be forgiven.

All contact orders made since 8th December 2008 contain a warning notice setting out the consequences of failure to comply.

The If a court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there has been a breach of a contact order, and that there is no reasonable excuse for the breach, they may make an enforcement order.

The court also has the power to find that an individual is in contempt of court for failing to comply with a contact order. If a party persistently breaches a contact order they may be held to be in contempt of court and could be committed to prison or fined

(Paraphrased from www.courtroomadvice.co.uk/breach-court-order-what-steps-take-next.html)
.

The independent article is about non-payment, not failing to turn up though

That report's not v clear - it looks as though it only applies to people who owe the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission money. Is this a hangover from the days when the CSA was supposed to pay the RP first and then claim back the money from the NRP? Did that ever happen? Did these men fall foul of them? The govt have no difficulty jailing people who owe them money, does it?

So how come they're not interested in jailing my ex then?

The CSA have 36% of non-payers, which equates to 468,000 NRPs registered with the CSA who are not paying maintenance (of course, that doesn't include NRPs who are not paying but whose cases are inactive or deemed compliant). Of that, 950 prosecutions means that less than 1% of non-payers are prosecuted (0.2% to be precise).

As the CSA spokesperson said in the report: "It is highly unusual for anyone to be sent to prison for the non-payment of child maintenance. Magistrates must be satisfied that a parent has wilfully refused or culpably neglected to meet their financial responsibilities."

So a court of law has to be convinced of this with proven evidence. This is hardly a well-used sanction. 0.2% IT would be even lower again if you include the 60% of NRPs not paying under private arrangements.

I don't think there is anything to be gained by imprisoning NRPs who fail to honour contact arrangements. However, I support the idea of sanctions whereby if they consistently fail to turn up/are late etc then contact can be suspended until they can demonstrate remorse and a sincere intention to improve (maybe several weeks on reliable, indirect contact with letters/phone calls etc), backed up with fines if this is further abused, and ultimately losing the right to contact. Anyone who hasn't bucked up their ideas by that point is clearly not someone who can be trusted to put a child's best interests first and therefore actually poses a risk to the child if contact is allowed.

I find it flabbergasting and horrific that a RP can be jailed for breaking an order- even if they are breaking the order to protect the child (i.e a child who is severly distressed by the meeting etc)

Yet the NRP gets no punishment for failing to keep to the order, and staggeringly more and more chances to prove the have changed if and when they feel like it.

I may be wrong on NRP getting no threat of prision etc but this is how I understood as the solicitors and McKenzies friends explained it.

How would the NRP turning up late be policed?