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!

[swallowedAfly]

i'm a loss as to why anyone finds it controversial to say that a man who has children should support them even if he splits from the mother and that that his existing children should be his priority.

the muddying of the water of my darling man's ex is a psycho bitch who lives the life of luxury and we suffer terribly blah blah blah is irrelevent imo. you chose to get with a man who has children and was paying child support (rightly so). you knew and chose to start a family with him.

it's also ironic that it was always her fault and she's a bitch. don't often see women coming on saying my husbands ex is lovely and it was his fault the marriage ended and she does a sterling job of raising the children. wonder why?

[Xenia]

swallowed, I wish more did. Whenever men tell me about their ex wives often I find myself thinking - well I bet a lot of it was your fault. In fact how they treat the first family is a really good way to find out who they will treat you.

I think separation just brings out the worst in people. I spoke to someone who had to go to court to see his 3 year old at all but then apparently didn't want as much time with it (he and the mother work full time) as she then wanted so be difficult because she'd made him go to court to get any contact at all he refused to look after it as much as she wanted.

I think people should try to stand back and think what is best for this child although it must be very hard. I have none of these problems because I have the children all the time and pay for everything which some woudl think is nirvana and it is compared to some situations but it also is pretty hard too at times.

[NotaDisneyMum]

i'm a loss as to why anyone finds it controversial to say that a man who has children should support them even if he splits from the mother and that that his existing children should be his priority.

Because that means that you expect a man to prioritise one (or more) of his DC's over others - purely based on who their Mum was!

Lets say that a widower remarries - should the same thing apply? Should the DC's who have lost their Mum be prioritised over their siblings - purely because they were there first?

The other question I have is who decides? If a DC was attending several clubs, lessons, holidays abroad and so forth with their together parents, what is an acceptable level of reduction in lifestyle in the event those parents divorce? Should they carry on, regardless? How can that be achieved, when the same amount of income is now split between two homes?

As for think carefully before having DC's with a man who already supports his DC's from a previous relationship I would pick a man who pays for his DC's, rather than a deadbeat who doesn't, as the better father of my own child. Why wouldn't you?

[scottishmummy]

look,most of us start with an only and more dc follow
so yes the pfb has to share time,finances with the other siblings even though they came 1st
wailing but he/she was first doesn't cut it.point of sharing is it accommodates all not just 1st burn

[SantaIAmSoFuckingRock]

nota you aren't getting it.

people are saying think about the children you have before having children with a new partner. if having more children will mean cutting the money you pay to your existing ones then you need to think very seriously about it. this might prevent being in a situation where you have two families and are having to decide which family gets your money.

also. as i said earlier, i think there should be a national minimum rate worked out by the govt. not to cover clubs and piano lessons but to cover food, shelter, clothing, heat etc. if the parents earn more then they pay more but the national minimum should cover the basics. clubs and classes outside of school should be agreed between the two parents and if one doesn't agree then the other pays as they are the one wanting them to go.

"As for think carefully before having DC's with a man who already supports his DC's from a previous relationship I would pick a man who pays for his DC's, rather than a deadbeat who doesn't, as the better father of my own child. Why wouldn't you? "

yes of course, common sense, but accept that this means he has priorities above you and that if you chose to have children with him, he will always have the same financial commitments to his first family, so dont be complaining when you have 3 children with him and money is tight. you knew the score at the start. again, common sense i would have thought.

[scottishmummy]

indeed if you shack up with man with kids you factor thatvinto the finances
so although you and new man may have one child,if he has 2 prior to you
the finances need to accommodate the total no children,nit just kids he has with new partner

[NotaDisneyMum]

if having more children will mean cutting the money you pay to your existing ones then you need to think very seriously about it.

Is'nt that equally applicable to families where the parents are still together though?

Why is it OK for two parents to decide, together, that their PFB can cope with sharing the household income with a younger sibling?
If an older DC is damaged by reduced financial support available to them, how does it matter whether the parents live together or not?

[SantaIAmSoFuckingRock]

"if having more children will mean cutting the money you pay to your existing ones then you need to think very seriously about it.

Is'nt that equally applicable to families where the parents are still together though?"


argh!!

yes, as i and others have been saying the whole way through this thread! do you just argue for the sake of it?

[OptimisticPessimist]

I am really do not understand the special treatment maintenance gets amongst household bills. Nobody would seriously consider deciding to pay less council tax as a way to afford another child, why is it ok to do that with maintenance? It is not about "sharing" resources, it's about the resources not actually spreading enough to cover basic costs. Maintenance is a basic cost, the same as food, housing, heating and clothing.

[SantaIAmSoFuckingRock]

exactly optimistic. like i said earlier, maintenance seems to be optional for some people. as if it's just as easy as reducing their Sky package. i just dont understand that.

[Xenia]

Yes, it's about someone who cannot afford another child having more with his new woman knowing he can probably skimp on the first family. We had a lot of children and I can afford it. The younger ones probably have slightly more luxurious a life than the first ones (bigger house etc), the older ones sometimes joking about comparisons between then and now - same family, same parents.

This is the same in some families where the mother remarries someone better off which happens with a lot of men I know and that man lifts the woman out of poverty and puts her children through private school and moves them into a much bigger house. INdeed some women serially seek such men in divorce after divorce or marriage after marriage I should say as a means of accruing wealth. It doesn't always work the other way round with a descent into poverty.

What does trouble me as I see it all the time is men ensuring they earn much less after divorce or giving up work or retiring early as a cunning plan to ensure their ex wife and children get less which is weird really particularly as they seem to think it would impress someone to hear about it which of course it doesn't at all. It's like a huge sign round their neck saying - I evade my responsibilities and don't support my children.

[allnewtaketwo]

Optimistic your point is only valid if the maintenance amount is of a value required to cover basic costs. If it exceeds this, which it often will, then it starts covering extras. I. E in no way comparable to council tax, or the gas bill

[allnewtaketwo]

Xenia, I presume when you see a mother who doesn't work you also see the same virtual sign around her neck that she doesn't financially provide for her children?

[OptimisticPessimist]

The assessment figure is a basic liability, just like council tax or a gas bill or rent/mortgage. If the only way an NRP can fund an additional child is to find a way to reduce that basic liability then they can't afford another child. I really don't understand what's wrong with saying that.

FWIW, I fully accept that I don't directly financially support my children. Given that I am responsible for them 100% of the time, that I support them in every other conceivable way completely alone and that my not working is as a direct result of my XP's refusal to co-parent, I'm pretty ok that one puzzle piece is missing atm. If my XP could say similar I'd have far less of a problem with his complete avoidance of financial responsibility.

[chickensarmpit]

My dad left my mum and us 4 kids to go and live with another woman and her kids. She was hostile from day 1 about us getting any money.
I don't understand why her children were taken into consideration when the csa calculated money for us when my sm got money off her kids dads.Plus the fact that those kids are not my dads.

I still remember the hurt when i asked my dad if he could get me some new school shoes because mine didn't fit anymore, only to be told he couldn't because he would have to buy his step-kids things to. Why?
I am his daughter.
This was the same for everything. I didn't have a coat for weeks in the winter because if my dad bought me anything the step-bitch would say it's unfair that her kids didn't get anything. Then she decided that she wanted to try for a baby! Yeah right! He can't pay for kids he's already got, but lets bring another kid into the world! That's more food out of mine and my siblings mouths.
My mum was brilliant, she worked fulltime and struggled like anything to raise us without the help of my dad and step-bitch.

I am now very bitter towards my dad (as you can probably tell). My siblings and i feel like we were pushed to one side, like we weren't wanted anymore.
I may get flamed for this but to be honest i don't care. Why is it so easy for people to go around having kids willynilly? With any tom, dick or harry?
Do people not realise the damage they can do to children already here?
My personal feelings are that the csa should account for children that our born to the parent they are claiming against.
That may be wrong but it is my own opinion.
Please excuse my rant, this is a very delicate subject for me.

[chickensarmpit]

P.s i don't think tax credits should be used when calculating csa either. That should be for the children it is intended for.

[allnewtaketwo]

Because the amount isn't always a basic amount which means its funding more extras. In any family, the extras the first child gets most likely reduces when other children are born. The extras aren't ring fenced just because that child was there first

[allnewtaketwo]

Optimistic are your children not yet of school age?

[Xenia]

allnew, my views on women who leech of men and provide housewife services and sex in return for being kept are well known but I certainly would not want to insult the massive numberse of housewives on mumsnet. We are all entitled to different views. If fathers were forced against their will to have children 50% of the time after divorce and to arrnage full time childcare in their weeks and pay for it then mothers left with children would find it easier to find full time work.

However we mustn't lose sight of the fact that many women are not very well educated and cannot earn much and for some of those their route out of poverty is their looks and sexuality to attract a man to keep them. If I think of men I've seen who have remarried it is virtually all in that category - gone on to remarry someone who had very little, taken on her children, pay school fees for those children, support that second or third wife. The country is littererd with leech like women who have more sense than do I - as one of the few women who had to pay a massive divorce settlement to man because I had worked rather than sat around living off male earnings. In a sense the idle benefits and one reason more women under 40 are millionaires in the UK is women have two ways to get that money - one is work as I work very hard and do well but there is a second route which is on your back and in the beauty parlour. Men tend only to have the one route and have less "sexual capital"as Hakim defines it than do men. I am not aganist women choosing to use all the tools in their arsenal given they only own 1% of the world's wealth, even if that tool is a large chest.

[CaHoHoHootz]

xenia
allnew, my views on women who leech of men and provide housewife services and sex in return for being kept are well known but I certainly would not want to insult the massive numberse of housewives on mumsnet

. Xenia! I can't believe you just said that? Is this a new mellow Xenia? .

[wannabedomesticgoddess]

I have never in my life heard such sexist drivel about women come from a woman.

[SantaIAmSoFuckingRock]

i knew it couldn't last. a thread with people nodding in agreement with Xenia. she had to ruin it

[wewereherefirst]

Agreement with Xenia- does the internet implode on itself now?

[Xenia]

I thought they were rather good lines and very open - I am saying use both routes - your sexuality to nab the rich man and live off male earnings or else earn your own money. Men only usually have one route.

[wannabedomesticgoddess]

Why is it always the woman who is living off the man though? Perhaps the man is so useless he needs a woman around.

Its just derogatory really. You are basically saying that women who dont make a lot of money havent worked hard enough and should just give up and find a rich man.