Government decides to make single parents lives more difficult

[Daddster]

The Government has announced a "name and shame" and other sanctions for absent parents who don't pay their maintenance (see link.

It is just me or are they really trying to make relationships which are already strained beyond breaking point and which already usually have a detrimental effect on the kids much much worse? As usual, the fallout will be on the kid, whom the non-paying parent will resent.

There was a peer on Radio 4 over the past few days quite rightly refusing a Conservative peer's suggestion that access to one's child be made conditional on payment of maintenance (you'd be punishing the wrong person), but this new suggestion is sort of doing the same thing.

Oh you're making me really angry actually. What about my rights? Or am I a second class citizen because I'm the "second" relationship (though actually the "first" and only marriage). I suppose you think I should just continue to subsidise other people's children whilst being unable to afford one of my own.

He should start over, although of course not forgetting he already has child(ren) but this starting over should not mean that he contributles less to his first child.

If I have another child, which I won't as I procreate responsibly, I woudn;t then say to my first dd oh by the way we are having another child so can you eat less please?

Sorry xposted. I can't get into this now - it's a very emotive subject and I have to go to bed.

Of couse you have rights but those rights are tempered by the fact that the man already has children so you can't just merrily produce children while trying to pretend that the others don't exist.

Just as my dp has rights, he wants children but his rights are limited by the fact that I already have a child and that will mean we may to to wait longer or as is probably the case for us never have children.

To be fair to my DH, it was ME who was desperate to have a child. It took four years incidentally, during which time I was told that I couldn't have NHS treatment for infertility because my husband had a child eons ago by another woman who lives hundreds of miles away.

"I suppose you think I should just continue to subsidise other people's children whilst being unable to afford one of my own."

I don;t expect you to subsidise a child, (although if we are going to be picky my dp subsides my child by my ex huband) but I do expect your husband to support his child and if that means you can;t have children then that is sad but a fact.

I'm not merrily pretending anything. We have acted responsibly the whole time. The CSA has messed up our lives good and proper in the past, but thankfully things have now settled down a bit.

My sister's ex ( I know I keep going on about him, but trust me, he is an @rseole) has about 6 children. CSA have not caught up him in any meaningful way (as in- he says he has no money cos unemployed, they believe him sob sob *), and his oldest child known to us is nearly 17. Her mum has never had maintenance for her children. One thankfully had a court order stating it was not in his best interests to have contact, and has been adopted by his step father). If they can't even catch flagrant law resisters like him (and frankly, a private detective for a few months would be cheap at the price, for the amount he's screwing the govt for...) what hope that this will turn out to be anything other than a dead duck?

FWIW, I believe that if a dad pays maintenance (particularly willingly) he should at least have reasonable access. That should not penalise those who really really cannot afford it, but non-residents parents (more often the father) can't just draw a line under their kids no matter what their relationship with their ex. If ex-partners can't come to an amicable arrangement about access, maintenance, etc, there must be a better way than getting out the big guns without even trying mediation and counselling to sort something out as amicably and peacefully as possible. The thing is, when you have children with someone, you are bound to them forever, whether you want to be or not. And if you are in a relationship with a person who has existing children, you can't just deny their existence and hope they go away, because they won't and neither will his/her previous life. That's the package you take on, for better or worse.

I do feel for you as a woman who cant have any more children herself, and like you I can't have children with the man I love. My dp is a wonderful father to dd and I know he woudl love kids and I feel very selfish that actions and mistakes from my past have such a hurtful effects on my present relationship. But when you are in a second time around relationship there is going to be baggage, difficult decisions and sacrifices.

I apologise for using the word merrily as I re read my post I thought that waa harsh, unfortunately I read my post through through after clicking post message.

Sorry.

DH's DD has met my DS by the way. We all have a good relationship. We are NOT pretending she doesn't exist. But they have pots of money and no mortgage. We are struggling. I don't see why DS shouldn't be taken into account in working out maintenance, that's all. I will never agree with you that I should be punished for things that happened in the past.

And I should say that my sister only knew about two of these children when she started her relationship with him, and even helped him out when he claimed to be too hard up to pay his maintenance (turns out he never gave the money to his ex, but thats a whole nother story)

Sorry, should clarify - pots of money now. Not in the past when they had their 2 more children and when our maintenance assessment was sky high.

Also Twinset, the difference with your dp is that he is at least living with and being a father to your DC. My DH's ex moved away with her family, so I haven't had the chance to build a real relationship with my stepdaughter and DH is hardly ever able to see her.

You are right, Twinkle. A person's present commitments should certainly be taken into account when calculating maintenance payments. I am shocked that they are not. My only other exposure to the CSA was via my sister in law, who received barely enough to keep her daughters in shoe leather (the figure of £40 per month per child springs to mind) from when they were 11 and 9. He even quibbled about chipping in with university fees because he wanted children with the woman he's scarpered with in the first place and didn't want to help. Virtually Victorian, that situation was, preventing his daughters (well, trying to...) from going to university.

I genuinely don;t think that her earnings should affect the maintence paid by your husband. he still has a duty to support his kids and the fact she has no mortagge is irrelevent.

In my own case when my ex told me with a huge grin on his face that he had finally gotten out of paying maintenance by getting his girlfriend pregnant I decided to withdraw myself from the situation as I felt for the baby and the mother. I phoned the CSA to inform them thatI no longer wanted maintenance as I did not need the money and I knew that money would be tight as my ex had lost his flashy job. I am gald I made this decision as he went on to work for a company that I would not like to think was paying money into my dd future, Money is still tight for them and although I think they were wrong to have the child we now pay some of their bills, I buy clothes for te baby and when we send dd for access we send her with money for food. I uy dd everything even down to an outfir for her to wear next month when she goes to her brothers christening.

They are Duchesse. Twinset was arguing that they shouldn't be and that DH and I shouldn't have had a son.

I think it works both ways and both sides have responsibilities. DH would be more amenable to helping out with his DD if he was allowed to maintain a relationship with her. As it is, if we were asked to get into debt to help his DD through university I would be extremely reluctant I have to say (sorry if that makes me a bad person).

Also Twinset, the difference with your dp is that he is at least living with and being a father to your DC.

that is a very recent development. He saw her as a baby when I was living in London but i couldn't be expected to carry on living in hostels or park benched with a baby so I moved up north to be with my fanily and where it would be cheaper for me to live. Despite being offered work my ex refused to love nearus or have regular access for about fouy years he then moved up for a few months before getting bored and moving down south just as dd was starting to form a relationship with him. He moved back up here when he lost his job and his baby was born.

I am in now way defending the fat that your dh ex is refusing to allow your dh and his child to have a relationship.

Despite all the evry unpleasant things my ex did I have never denied him access and always tried to encourage it even when it put me in danger and made me ill.

I think it is difficult for us to agree when we are both dealing with exes who sound like arsehols perhaps if we dealt with more reasonable people we would have more coomon ground.

But for the purposes of working out the proportion of maintenace paid by her and DH (because that is how it used to be done), she was treated like she had no earnings at all. I have never quite got over the fact that the old assessments were worded in such a way that we were paying for HER upkeep, not the child's. I'm not saying that DH shouldn't be paying maintenance - please don't misunderstand me. But the CSA nearly bankrupted us in the past through unreasonable and unfair assessments that didn't take account of DH's variable earnings. Like I said things have improved now.

We were assessed under the old system to my earnings have never been taken into account, not that it mattered as he ignored the assessment and paid when he felt like it.

I don't know if it changed as the assement changed suddenyl from £500 a month to £300 and then when he had the child to £5 a week.

I hope we can find common ground elsewhere Twinset. I'm sorry you've had a tough time. But I can't imagine being without my son and I won't feel bad for having him - ever. He has given my DH a new lease of life as well and the chance to be a proper dad, which has been denied to him up to now.

Well as I said if you have been assessed unfairly, although that is bound to be a subjective judgement, then I support you and feel that you should have very right to have a child.

I am sure we will Twinklemegan. I am 0% bitch you know it has been confirmed tonight!