Is there something on internet explaining, reasoning with a mean/thick deadbeat why he should, morally, pay maintenance?

[LiffeyKidman]

Just wondering?

My x is maggoty rich and doesn't contribute. He genuinely believes that he has no moral obligation to give me money towards the children because I left him, and therefore 'implicity undertook to pay for their upbringing'.

I can't argue or reason with that level of idiocy and denial, and I don't try anymore.

I am just wondering if there is anything on the internet, aimed at deadbeat fathers, to make them understand and face up to the fact that they are in the wrong not to contribute,,,

just wondering, because although for now I'm not persuing x for money, I will next year. (long story, legal issue).

Hi Queen

It is possible to work and have kids. Trust me, I have two kids and have worked throughout their lives. I've been full time carer for most of that time too.

I remember at the beginning it hardly seemed worth it either. Especially not considering I was dropping them at child minders at 8am, picking them up at 6pm, fed then bedtime at 7.30pm. But I did it as I wanted to set a good example and also because I hoped that by working hard and making those sacrifices that years later I'd be in a better position.

Did I feel bad at the time for leaving them with someone else? Hell yes! Am i better off for it now? I think so.

So don't try to tell me its impossible because its not. I know plenty of single parents who work. Obviously its easier when the kids are at school. Also, the govt pay up to 80% of childcare anyway so that should go a long way to making it worthwhile.

Interesting discussion! DH has been in a similar position- his ex told him she was pregnant after they split up, they got back together, didn't work, she left. Originally he had access and paid an agreed amount. All of a sudden (once he met me!), she contacted the CSA and that was when it all got a bit nasty. Has to be said, though, that DHs fight was always with the CSA- it would never have crossed his mind not to pay towards his child's upkeep.

The CSA has done a lot of damage, IMO. They don't base their calculations on what the child needs, but on what THEY think the father can afford, without taking into account most of the father's outgoings AND without taking into account any of the mother's income, which I don't think is fair. Due to the nastiness that resulted from the CSA's heavy-handed involvement, the relationship between DH and his ex broke down completely, and he hasn't had contact with his child for years, which I know hurts him more than he will admit. We still pay- and more than we need to, given that we have a further 2 kids the CSA don't know about, but we think the amount we pay now is fair.

I can understand the bitterness a lot of men must feel, as the system seems to wholly penalise the father, and the mother seems to bear no responsibilty financially for the child she has helped create, which to me is hugely outdated and sexist. HOWEVER, I think N1 is overly bitter, and misguided about what he should pay to support his child- it is one extreme to the other. I would give him the advice I gave my DH when he was getting all fired up at the CSAs demands- it's only money! If it means that much to her, let her have it. Don't let it take over your life. She thinks she has won because we paid up, but we would have lost far more if we had allowed ourselves to get embroiled in bitterness and loathing. WE are happy- poorer but happy. Presumably his ex is happy. I'd like to think the child is happy, although the loss of contact is something I wish DH would address, but he has his head in the sand, and thinks she is better off with her "new" family Everyone is a winner! In N1's case it would seem that life is pretty unpleasant for him, his ex, and possibly the child. It's only money!

Over the years, I have been hardened to comments that aren't applicable. I accept criticism, if it teaches me something, I can see how I could be better off. I will not pay ex anything so keeping that point in mind, if there is something helpful, I might be interested.

The CSA have firmly driven a wedge between me and ex, to the point that I will not budge from my decision. Ex thought she could use the CSA to drive me under. It failed, so that makes ex more mad. I guess that I should be pleased, but it's not my intention to feel above the ex, just stand form in the decisions I have made (made rightly or wrongly).

Regarding my son, I don't feel that he is starving at his mother. In saying that, I do feel that if I gave her more money, that the additional money wouldn't make any diffrence when taking my son into consideration. The diffrence would be in the way she uses the money for herself and in a way to try to push me out of my son's life.

At the moment, lack of funds from me to my ex is keeping the relationship that I ans my son have working. Ex isn't going to spend her money on fighting me but will happily spend money she gets from me to fight me.

I personally don't feel that higher earners should pay much more than middle income earners. A person who wants to pay and trusts their ex to direct the money to the children will feel that the money is being well used. Lack of trust remains the primary concern and if there are concerns, then the person paying isn't going to feel comfortable paying. Add force into the equasion and you are more than likely going to get more resistance. If the resistance doesn't work, then resistance changes into something else, like hostility. Who feels the hostility (or it's effects)? everyone. Remove the money issue right out the picture....what's left? One parent who feels that the absent parent gets a life of being better off, but the parent with the children is the one who walked away (with the children and without any agreement of separation before walking away.

If the parent who left approached and reasoned with the working parent to the point that the working parent directed things that he felt he could see being used on the child, he would be much happier paying. The paying parent does not want to feel that he is paying to the upkeep of the dishonest person. I am fairly sure that most non payers would contribute something to their children if they knew it went straight to the children and not the ex.

Is it better to get something than nothing? In my mind, yes. To people who expect and demand money, those are also the people who want everything their way or no way as all - hence the suggestion to send the problem to the CSA.....so who sounds like the person who wants to control the children and the life of the children with the flexibility of having cash paid to them.

I think it's the case in a few cases where the resident parent doesn't want the children to feel better off getting things from the absent parent because that makes the resident parent feel inferior or under valued.

Where does emotional value and feeling to the child come into question then? The emotional link between parent and child can't have a financial value. It can have a warmth and compassion value which money can't purchase.

N1- I do have a certain amount of understanding why you don't want to give the money to your ex- this used to be a bugbear of my DHs too: that the CSA only cared how much they felt he could afford, so anything not actually needed for his child went straight into the mother's pocket. But again, at the end of the day, is it worth letting it rule your life? Fuck her, give her what she wants/ what she can get and move on. Enjoy contact with your son without all this angst and anger. Ironically, if the CSA hadn't gotten involved, Dhs ex would now be getting more, as the CSA drastically reduced his payments after we had our first child. I appreciate it is hard to swallow, but you seem to be allowing it to consume you. Wouldn't you feel better to just get the moral victory, and be the bigger person?

I think I understand what you are saying N1.

If you pay any maintenance your ex uses that to fund solicitors and stop you from seeing your son.

If you don't pay then she doesn't have the spare cash to do that.

So if you could pay part of the rent/whatever directly to the landlord, or part of the gas bill directly to the supplier, or pay for a Tesco delivery you would? You would happily pay for anything as long as it didn't go via your x's hands?

N1

I know you probably won't listen, but the most telling comment for me was "I am not withholding money from my son, I refuse to pay money (cash or similar) to the ex."

How is your ex supposed to pay for the food that feeds your son if not with money, cash or similar?

How is she supposed to pay for the gas that keeps him warm if not with money or similar?

How is she supposed to pay for outings/sports/trips to the cinema/museums/an icecream on a hot day if not with cash or similar?

You are not giving your ex the credit of being an adult able to make judgements about what is necessary for the day to day maintenance of her (and your) child. I could speculate that this is because she has (in your eyes) shown poor judgement in the past by refusing to stay living with you, but I won't drop to this level.

All the rest is smokescreen. She left you. Get over it. You asre behaving like a spoilt child. Grow up and start taking some responsibility.

N1 it's very simple. That your ex chose to end your relationship without your agreement should not affect the level of maintenance you pay for your child. You are continuing to try to control her and frankly the more of your comments I read the more sympathy I have for her.

"the parent with the children is the one who walked away (with the children and without any agreement of separation before walking away."

The issue of the children's residency is one thing, but you are still insisting that your ex needed to be granted permission to leave!

Despite this unacceptable attitude being pointed out several times on this thread you seem to be incapable of separating your relationship with your ex and your relationship with your child.

I can see where you are coming from in a few respects, but this is a fundamental flaw in your logic and it is not healthy. For anyone involved. At the moment you don't contribute yet you see your DS and you're still not happy. What would make you happy I wonder?

The reason this strikes a chord with me is that my first husband still thinks I was unreasonable for not giving "the relationship" more chances.

His violence and drug-addiction escalated hugely after the wedding and during my pregnancy. I had a baby of six months old with a bleeding disorder and a grown man who couldn't control his fists and I was supposed to choose him over my child's safety.

Apparently we should have been to Relate, and him to drug and anger-management counselling - things he never made an effort to organise - before I had the cheek to throw him out of my house.

There was no "relationship" to work at. What sort of partnership does one have when a man refuses to work when his wife is back full-time with an eight-week baby? Spending her salary on a childminder while he is at home?

I was property, not a partner. I am not for one minute saying you were anything like this N1, but it is the attitude that is so worrying.

Niceguy, I see the point you're making but it does depend on your earning power. Mine is low. Also, when my children were very young and had just lost their father I didn't feel it was right for them to immediately go into full time child care just so we could break even. I accept that this was partly choice, but it wasn't as simple as that, after 8 yrs with a controlling man I wasn't able for a job. I am getting to the point now where I would be able for a job.

Also, I'm in Ireland and the government doesn't pay 80% of childcare!!! I don't think they pay 80% of it in the UK either

It is still controlling to decide where money goes when it is given to the resident parent. It is no longer anything to do with them and they cannot control things the way they could when they were together.

The fact is that most women are worse off financially after a divorce and most men are better off. When many of the women end up being the resident parent you have to ask why this injustice is allowed to continue.

If someone is not capable of looking after a child then a parent who really cares first and foremost for their child should see it is better to ensure they have residency even if that means a court case.

Personally, I consider someone who does not pay what they should towards their child's upbringing for whatever reason, immoral and unfit.

QueenLiffey

I am not judging your particular situation. Merely saying that there are plenty of us who choose to work, even though its a daily struggle to juggle all the balls and we believe the sacrifices are worth it.

I've no experience of Ireland other than a weekend in Dublin so cannot comment on the state of childcare over there. In my opinion though good childcare should be subsidised to give parents single or otherwise a choice.

Glitterfairy, i'm not sure that "most men" would agree with you on that. Certainly one of my friends has been told by his solicitor that if he decided to end his marriage, despite being equal partners for 15 years, he could expect to get a minority share of their house, not be able to sell it and be expected to pay maintenance. Which means he wouldn't be able to afford anywhere decent for himself to live and then see his own kids. Not seeing how he would be classed there as financially better off.

Another friend of mine split with his wife and he pays 20% of his net income and despite having a very well paid job, his exwife is still financially better off than him despite only working part time once you take into account tax credits, maintenance and part time salary.

Niceguy2, it wasn't the need to defend MYself that made me point this out to you, it's to make the point that although you genuinely believe that all single parents can work you are mistaken. If you have a good salary it is possible, even then, with a good salary it's a daily struggle to break even, and it's more of a longterm investment, and that is with a fairly good salary. A nurse or a typist or a waitress, or any woman who's been out of the work place for ten years, or who has just worked in a shop for example, does not have the choice to work and just break even, they would be operating at a loss.

So you are quite naive if you think that all single parents can work. It depends on the support they get, their salary, the number of children they have, the ages of those children.... it does depend entirely.

I never said all single parents can work, just pointed out that it IS possible after you said it was "NOT POSSIBLE" for N1's ex to work just because she had kids. I also believe a single parent should have the support he/she needs to work rather than be caught in a benefits trap.

I'm not naive, far from it. You may say I'm fortunate to have a good job. Perhaps but i've also worked damn hard to get to where i am today and my kids have had to make sacrifices just as much as I have. Like you said though, i made a long term investment. Time will tell if it was the right choice.

Maybe I'm buying into N1's vision of his x, but I'm not getting the picture of a highly capable high earner. I'm getting the picture of a low-earner with ? how many children? none of the fathers contributing to childcare expenses!!

Being somebody with a low earning potential doesn't make you a bad mother though, and if that is the case, you're better off waiting before moving heaven and earth to work.

To clear a few points up.
My ex left me and 9 months later I met a new relationship. At that time, me seeing my son was reduced to Saturday and Sunday, by ex's demands. There was no reason for me to stay living where I was, so I moved and still got to see my son on the weekends. During the start of the 9 months separation, I was paying child care costs £400 a month odd. I paid the child care so the ex could study. At the time, I didn't know that she was having an affair. I am not sure what a good solution would be if the parents couldn't agree before separating, though I would like to hope that the clarity at the end of the relationship counted towards something helpful and reasonable. One of the parents needs to have done something wrong, drugs, drink, DV, cheating, what ever.

When I moved to the new relationship, she suggested starting a divorce. Accept the ex didn't respond to anything and it cost me over a grand to get her into court, by order of the court.

I don't for a moment begrudge my ex leaving, in fact I am glad she left me. What I don't like was the flow of lies and many attempts by her to exclude me from my son's life.

At the time to separation, all the ex needed to do was say that she wanted out and how were we going to sort the finances out, child care out...etc. Ex knew she was in the wrong and she wanted more than what she could fairly agree to, so she moved, got herself comfortable (and pregnant by another bloke), then wanted to play happy families without me being in the picture. Her plan didn't work.

My ex did have legal aid at the time, which she used to help break court orders. I put a stop to her misuse of legal aid twice and she got it back 3 times. In the last 6 months, things have calmed down, though I am not expecting things to stay calm.

When I said that the money would be misused...I can use an example. A trip to France on a weekend that my son should come to me, then another trip to a theme park at the next weekend, forcing the child to choose between coming to me and not going on a trip. The France trip was a con in it's self. My son can go on the trip but no money (or hardly any) gets spent on him but other children can have money spent on them. The excuse to my son would be that I don't pay enough. While I am not opposed to my son going on any trips, the trips are planned to conflict with time when the court orders that he be available to me. Swapping is out of the question - the reply is a gobby - don't talk to me, talk to my lawyer or see you in court.

To add onto that point, I don't earn enough to be able to pay her much, some months I would have to pay nothing. I choose to stay in this position because funds would be misused. If the money I paid went to solicitors and just used on court cases only, I can now deal with that, I am LIP, but the money gets spread over anything that keeps my son and I apart.

Further, if I started paying and stopped, I have a double wrath, first for stopping something and second for not paying. At the moment I am just not paying and am prepared to get cloths that my son needs/wants.

If I were in Canada, I would take law into my own hands. I am surprised that they don't have more problems, but then I would think that the law is more fair on divorcing parents.

I cannot believe that the bitterness that you are showing, N1, does not spill over into your interractions with your son. This poor lad must feel torn between you and his mum - how on earth can that be good for him?

Why not pay into a savings account in his name? That way he would get the money when he was 18, and in the interim he'd know that you weren't a deadbeat dad, deliberately staying in lowpaid jobs just so as to avoid having to support him.

And who forced your son to choose between the trip to France and seeing you? You did - that's who. It's clear to me from your post at 21.23 that it was a school trip or some other organised trip - well newsflash, N1 - they don't organise those on purpose to conflict with your access weekends. You could have made it easy for your son and told him you'd be happy for him to have the chance of visiting France - instead, if I have read you correctly, you refused to pay for the trip so that he had no choice in the matter. He won't understand all the nuances of who did what to whom in your marriage, and whether or not his mum would compromise on access - all he will have seen is that his dad didn't let him go to France.

You have a responsibility to this child - to his emotional and mental wellbeing as well as to his physical wellbeing. Telling him, in years to come, that you bought him clothes is not going to make up for your behaviour. You can (and doubtless will) ignore all that has been said to you here, but it is you that will pay the price in years to come. Worse, your son is suffering now - and you are playing your part in continuing that suffering. You should be ashamed.

I think the France trip is a good example of how both parents are so caught up in the fighting that they've lost sight of whats in the best interests of their son.

Personally I'd have forsaken a weekend access if I knew DS would have a good time on a trip abroad. Thats if I was a NRP.

As I am a RP I would always offer to swap weekends with my ex if something like that falls on her weekend. In fact, I always give the final say to my ex if it does fall on her weekend. As its time when SHE is in charge.

N1's ex could have adopted a similar friendly approach to solve a relatively simple problem but instead chooses to inflame the situation and feed the solicitors.

Its the boy I feel for. He is growing up knowing the two people he loves unconditionally hate each other. As he grows up, he will have to tread on eggshells not to take sides or appear biased.

The trip abroad was not a school trip. Ex wanted to go. It was at a time when she wanted to cut me right out of my son's life. Ex would ask my son to ask me about the places they plan on going to. I am not ashamed. Personally, I would rather file an application for residence, but by doing that, my son looses (quiet likely) his younger half siblings and potentially looses his mother. I can see her going well off the rails if SS get onto her trail. How upset will my son be then? While I get my son, I can also see him being unhappy with me and my course of actions. For now, it's not ideal but it can go.....and all this because money is involved. Even if I did pay her, I would have the hassle of trying to see my son (again).

I have no problems getting my son. I can see him in class wanting to get out before the end of school to get to me or trying to jump the line to get out to me. Usually exited and pleased to see me. The trip back has had some unusual comments, some suggesting that I call the school and say that he is sick or the car broke down so he can spend Monday with me...etc. Some comments involve his mother.

I think removing the expectation of money would be better. This would push the parents into agreeing between themselves. The leaving parent would know that there can be no unfair demands and know that life might not be to cosy with less money.

Perhaps more thought would be given when separating is considered than separate first, then look for answers.

For possibly the first time ever I have absolutely nothing to say. I am gobsmacked.

blah!

Oh actually I have just thought of something.

TWANKER

Yeah that just about sums it up.

I'm not sure why it is so difficult to accept that sometimes mothers behave badly too. I don't think access and money should get mixed up, but surely there is more to parental obligation that coughing up cash? Of course any party can leave a marriage or relationship at any time, but it is not unreasonable to get very upset, and think it is wrong for your partner to leave and take your children with them when you cannot see that you have done anything terrible to deserve it (and I am assuming a relatively normal relationship here, with right and wrong on both sides). For many parents having their children removed is devastating, and I still think that it can be an uphill struggle for many non resident parents to have a working and fair plan for access if the resident parent fights against it. I don't think that any parent should refuse to contribute fully towards their children. But I also don't think any parent should be allowed to block access unless there are really significant problems (and even then there are supervised access arrangements possible).

Children have a right to be supported by both parents, financially and emotionally through spending time together. It is a real pity that our support systems (legal, CSA etc) in the UK are not better at making this happen, and that parental relationships can end up in such a terrible mess. I suspect that the children in these families suffer significantly from trauma that really should be avoidable in most cases.

OP, I doubt that there is anything you could show your x that would help because it would be you showing it to him, and therefore he'd probably discount it (even if it was fantastic). Perhaps someone outside of your circle could help him see sense, but there is probably very little you can do (bar the legal side which you have already decided to pursue at a later date). When my dh was going through a rather blind phase in life he stated that he wanted to emigrate, and that the children could live with each of us, for a few years at a time, whilst spending holidays with the other parent. He couldn't accept that this was nuts and would make us all, and especially the children incredibly unhappy. He was absolutely convinced it would work, and the children would benefit. Now we have put things back together, and tried the emigration thing he knows that he couldn't possibly have done what he suggested (apart from the fact I would have fought it and won). Sometimes we are completely blind.

Oh Nooka, I know, I have a friend who's ex-wife is absolutely barking mad and behaves badly at every opportunity. Yet, despite being less than sane himself at times, they keep their arguments well out of the children's earshot, he always pays for their upkeep and they present a more or less united front to their children. Yes, she does some horrible things. I've seen him in tears about it. But, despite earning less than a quarter of her income, he pays his share because they are his children too.

I just wonder if N1 realises what an example he is setting for his son. He is teaching him that women need to be punished for their transgressions, that his ego is more important than the wellbeing of his children and that money and control are more important than love. Is it any wonder his ex-wife is trying to limit his exposure to such ideas?