Is this true? WARNING DM link "Fathers to be hit by rise in maintenance..."

[TotalBummer]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2244303/Fathers-hit-rise-maintenance-children-following-sweeping-new-reforms.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

If it is, we are going to be in the sh!t AGAIN. Merry Christmas to all those Fathers who actually pay through the nose and can't afford to look after the family they have living with them AND we have our Child Tax credits taken off us to give to his ex who never let him see his DD in the first place.

I know there will be Mums out there who are shafted by their exes but it is ones like my DP and my kids who are being destroyed by the CSA. Bankruptcy looms.

Sorry - It just never ends. Money, money, money. They will take our house and our kids will be on the street and they DON'T CARE!

[SantaIAmSoFuckingRock]

"If a Dad loses day to day family life with his DCs due to choices made by his ex, should his opportunities to move on with his life and have further DCs with another partner be restricted unless he can provide for his first DCs at the same level as he did when they were a family?

Should any DCs he has with a second partner miss out because their Dads exW chooses to financially rely on him despite excluding him from their shared DCs lives? "

not that you're biased or anything

but no, children cost the same to raise whether you are with their other parent or not. they dont suddenly start eating less or stop growing because your wife cheated. he will always have those children to care for and they were a choice he made however many years ago. he chose to be a parent and raise these children to adulthood. that commitment does not end with the marriage/relationship. and yes, his existing children (and the cost of raising them) should be a factor when deciding to have other children. common sense.

paying for your children just seems so fucking optional to some.

[SantaIAmSoFuckingRock]

"By the above logic, I am being unfair towards my existing kids by not having as much money to go around for a decision they've had no choice in making."

er, duh! the decisions you make affect your children. accidents happen yes and unplanned pregnancy will always happen. but lets not pretend it doesn't affect those that already exist. and lets not pretend that effect isn't sometimes negative.

[SantaIAmSoFuckingRock]

"My DP is a NRP, his last relationship ended due to some rather torrid infidelity on her part. He didn't want to leave, but he did.

She is now withholding contact, refusing to use the private agreement (that gave her more money) and going through the CSA.
Part of the headache this has caused is that he gets paid weekly, but CSA is paid monthly - I know this is easily sorted but it's just an unnecessary problem imo.

She is also threatening court over contact, despite only wanting the kids to see their father.

She lives on benefits, has gone on to have 2 further children and a stepchild (that she claims for) and does not 'need' the money at all - it's all done in spite.

So yes, this new CSA is very unfair, as is the fact that the RP - who chooses when and if the NRP gets contact - has all the power in using the children like pawns. "

yes, the actions of 1 PWC are proof that no NRP should have to pay a fair rate for their children

again, not that you're biased or anything?

[scottishmummy]

how does a mum on benefits not need money for the children?
I think some of you 2nd partners are deluded in accounts you give
do you ever think well he would say that,when your new man deriding ex and complaining about paying for own kids

[SkeletonButterfly]

It's a personal experience, that for me and my family makes a massive difference between our sutuation and to those feckless people who choose to leave and not pay - when there are good decent men trying to do the right thing and the RP is pissing all over any attempt at that.

[Xenia]

It's all relative. My talk of our court order saying I pay the 5 sets of school/university fees is pie in the sky for benefit claimants and there are plenty of very very rich people who would see my own obligations as peanuts too.

The political issue is that we (hard working full time working single mothers and fathers who pay very high taxes are having to support increasing numbers of children of single parents and their parents because either the mother chooses not to work or picked a career which means she can never even earn more than the cost of child care or she cannot find a job or the system is set up to mean she's better off if on benefits or she won't move and / or her ex won't or cannot support his children.

My own solution which is also consistent with feminism is to ensure women can work more easily that children are with both parents half the time which means the man who swans in to take the children out for a few hours can't duck the day to day combing of the hair for nits, the clearing up sick, the washing never mind the finding of the childcare not just for the working day but the 6am starts and 1-0pm finishes many of us work. and all the other stuff resident parents do day in day out.

I spoke to a man yesterday who seemed to think he was some kind of hugely involved father of a 3 yera old and it was ludicrous. They both work full time but he only sees the child every other weekend and even that which I assumed was Friday pick up from day nursery and Monday morning return it is a few hours and one over night stay so one night in 14, nothing like the massive parental contribution he was making out.

[SkeletonButterfly]

And, in income v outgoings (taking into account that she has 5 children living with her against our 1 child) without cm she is actually vastly better off - by which I mean she has much more disposable income - whereas we penny pinch to the max as it is, and begrudge the fact that we will be paying up to 20% more for the children to receive up to 7% less.
Of course Nrps should pay for their children - my point is that you cannot generalise the reasons for it being necessary, and spite should be taken into account as well!

[NotaDisneyMum]

not that you're biased or anything

In contrast, you are a model of unbias objectivity

paying for your children just seems so fucking optional to some

Everybody has different experiences - no-one is more right or justified than another and just because MY experience is not the same as yours doesn't make you right and me wrong!

[NotaDisneyMum]

he chose to be a parent and raise these children to adulthood. that commitment does not end with the marriage/relationship. and yes, his existing children (and the cost of raising them) should be a factor when deciding to have other children. common sense

I agree - it should be a factor that BOTH parents consider when making life decisions - not just the NRP.
It should be a factor when a RP chooses to give up work, remarry, have another DC, too, don't you think?

[allnewtaketwo]

When I discussed that very point with another poster on a different thread, her view was that a pwc was entitled to give up her job to look after new children and therefore provide nothing financially for the "first" children, but that an nrp shouldn't be allowed to do this. Go figure.

[tilder]

Ok, so every case is different.

However if my dh and I split up I would expect him to financially support our children. If he went on to have more children with someone else, I would expect him to financially support all of them. I work too, but I think both parents are responsible for their children. I don't see why separation from the mother removes that responsibility. If it would mean he couldn't afford children with a new partner, then tough really. Is that controversial?

[Daddelion]

Tilder

Does that also mean you shouldn't have more children?
As you'd be sharing the money out more thinly.

[SkeletonButterfly]

It's not a case of affordability, more a case of fairness. It seems to me to be horrendously unfair that we struggle on our (earned) money and my DP wants to do right by his children - all of them - and because she can go off, procreate and get it all paid for, and we are left feeling bitter because when we had any contact the children were paid for here - and at home, on top of other payments; ie school uniform, clothing, toys and things for at their dads, we private rent and stretched for an extra room for children that now can't stay here. This seems grossly unfair to me - she was the reason the relationship ended, yet she holds all the cards wrt the children and contact. It's not about the money, it's emotional abuse via the children and the extra money on top (thanks condem) is just the icing on a rather horrid cake.

[NotaDisneyMum]

tilder - but does that mean providing the DC's with what they NEED, or what they WANT?
It actually doesn't cost that much to keep a DC - but there are lots of extras that it is nice to give.

If a RP is in poverty, and struggling to feed their DC's and the NRP goes on to have further DC's, then that may be considered selfish -but if the DC's have a good standard of living, then why shouldn't that drop because one of their parents has another DC?

[OptimisticPessimist]

"When I discussed that very point with another poster on a different thread, her view was that a pwc was entitled to give up her job to look after new children and therefore provide nothing financially for the "first" children, but that an nrp shouldn't be allowed to do this. Go figure"

If a PWC did this then presumably their new partner would be providing financial support for the household. If an NRP does this and their household continues to pay an appropriate amount of maintenance then I don't have a problem with them becoming a SAHP if they choose to. What I do have a problem with is the NRP deliberately making decisions that impact on their legal obligation to pay maintenance and not making other arrangements to ensure that their (the NRP's) family unit finds a way to financially support the original children. Is it really that difficult to see the difference?

[OptimisticPessimist]

"we will be paying up to 20% more for the children to receive up to 7% less"

This will only happen if your DP does not pay. Under the new service PWC will have to accept direct payments (ie, the CMS will do an assessment and reassess each year, but the NRP will then pay the amount directly to the PWC) and they will only collect the money on behalf of the PWC if the NRP does not pay the assessed amount directly.

[SkeletonButterfly]

Oh thank you Optimist - that's good to know. It's frustrating going through an external agency when we had a good system going, so good to hear that we will not have to do it and she will have to accept direct payment anyway. This makes it seem less like a way she can control my DP

[wewereherefirst]

Id be happy to do a private arrangement, but it means setting up a separate account for the money to go into as DH ex has form for fraud and we can't risk exposing our main account to the ex and she doesn't want us to do it anyway, it's a shame as she would get more this way.

We havnt mentioned to the CSA about our DS2 as they will reduce the money that goestto DSS and that is not fair on him or Ex.

I just wish the CSA would be more amicable so I wouldn't have to organise everything as they gave DH an awful time when we were being compliant and they suddenly calmed right down when I spoke to them. CSA sucks on all sides.

[tilder]

Daddelion yes, it would also apply to me. Although in practice I would be too old.

I did say every case is different and for me this is hypothetical, but if parents split they have a financial responsibility to their existing children and I think that should be considered before adding more children. Am sure if dh and I split, which I hope never happens, the standard of living for all of us would fall as it costs more to run two house holds.

Am aware this is a complex issue, I guess it just irritates when a second family complains about financially a first family.

[Daddelion]

Why should a new partner be providing for other people's children?

And going on the arguments on here he shouldn't have any children already and shouldn't have anymore children.

So the mother shouldn't become a Sahm as she shouldn't be having anymore children and should be providing for them.

[OptimisticPessimist]

No problem Skeleton. As I said, she can still involve the CMS and he will be legally required to pay the amount they set, but as long as he pays directly the only involvement they will have is to do a yearly re-assessment based on up-to-date HMRC data (supposedly. It's yet to be proven and I have little faith). I think the CSA doesn't really serve anyone well - I have been waiting almost 5 months for an assessment to be done, every time I call yet another problem has popped up, and the last woman I spoke to was quite rude and suggested me calling regularly for an update was pointless - given that sometimes nothing has actually been done between calls and me calling seems to provoke some action from them it's clearly not.

[SantaIAmSoFuckingRock]

"I agree - it should be a factor that BOTH parents consider when making life decisions - not just the NRP.
It should be a factor when a RP chooses to give up work, remarry, have another DC, too, don't you think? "

totally. if you look at my posts throughout this thread you will see that i think BOTH parents should be paying for their children's upbringing. i'm not sure why you would think i feel differently.

[SantaIAmSoFuckingRock]

and yes. it is a fact that paying for your children is an option for some people, that isn't my opinion.

[tilder]

I'm sorry Daddelion I'm not sure I understand that.

I do appreciate I am coming from a rather simplistic view point but I agree with a previous poster whose dh had a son who he was supporting and wouldn't have any more if he felt it would be detrimental to him. The dh sounded lovely.

I am going to leave this thread now.

[CaHoHoHootz]

It's all so complicated, best plan is to think very carefully before settling down and having DC's with someone. I know divorces/seperation cant always be helped but it makes things a whole lot easier not to.
I have a lot of respect for seperated couples that manage to be civil to one another and put the needs of the DC's first.
I agree that the norm should be a proper 50/50 split and I don't understand the assumption that the mother should automatically be the main carer and that the father should be the breadwinner.