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.

Expat - what about when the mother goes off with another man?! I can't quite believe some of the bitter opinions on this thread. According to some of you lot, there appears to be nothing wrong whatsover in my DH being forcibly cut out of his children's lives whilst being pursued as a handy wallet of cash. And apparently he's not allowed to try and get on with his life and be a proper dad to his new son. Unbelievable!

But you are also bitter twinkle. People get bitter when they are treated unfairly and many of us have been.

Of course there are exceptions but in the majority of cases on this thread the men have not paid up when they should morally and legally and have gone out of their way to make things difficult.

Just because that's the majority of cases on this thread, doesn't mean that that's the majority of cases in real life AND doesn't excuse the marginalization of the majority of fathers if there is a split in the family.

I never said it did I was simply answering twinkle. I am not sure what is gained by this in any case. Sometimes generalising is helpful and sometimes the people in the minority get upset.

Persephone - that is a terrible thing to say. Last time I looked all children were created equal.

well, they're not are they. my ex has three children with me, fcks around on me, leaves me and children for some floozy who he then impregnates (tells me on xmas eve, because, yes he does have that much class...) and then expects me to make cutbacks because he wants another child. I* didn't want another child, but I'm paying for it, because I have to take up the slack to feed and clothe his 'first' family.

he left her, incidentally, so i fully expect another lot of irresponsible oat sowing with his new gf at some point in the future.

yes, our situations are different, but the law can't account for every eventuality. if a couple can't afford to have more children, how can they suddenly afford to have more when they're no longer a couple?

I certainly can't afford to have more children, so i don't.

Glitterfairy - yes I probably am bitter about the situations we've been put in over the years. But the difference is I don't think I'm accusing all of you women from first relationships of deliberately excluding your ex's from your DCs' lives. On the other hand, by implication many of you are tarring my DH (and therefore me by association) with the same brush as your own feckless ex's. We are trying to do the right thing, and being punished for it at every turn.

Twinkle I really think that generalising shoudl nto be confused with a direct attack on your circumstances.

Much of the problem is that when rules are made there are always exceptions but the rules are broken by one set of people (those who dont bother to pay) whihc makes everyone else suffer.

this really doesnt affect me my dds dad pay straight to me an amount that he decided but is more than csa or whatever they want to be called would take from him but he sees that as i right to pick up & drop his child whenever he wants & his answer to not seeing her is well ive paid you to look after her, thats really not the point i would rather have no money yes no money off him & him have very regular contact with his child who loves him very much & is suffering from his actions