I have no idea abo0ut what form I should let my anger out. Up till now I haven't had that problem. I will have a think when I cross the bridge.
What I find rather annoying is that some people are so very focused on insisting on getting money, there isn't any consideration given for anything else. The same reasons, bills have to be paid, rent....etc. Where did this desire to focus on money come from?
The value in a relationship shouldn't be measured with an amount of money. The value should be measured in what the absent parent means to the child.
Adding money, and in the case of the CSA, it's not limited to a fixed amount, it's a proportion of an absent parents entire income.
It's an agreed, that it took a mother and father to make the child. At the point of separation, someone did something wrong to cause the separation to happen. Secret family courts don't want to point a finger (most likely the "ignore the wrong" doo-gooder logic creeping in) so bad behaviour is not recognised. Someone caused a break up, should the person causing the separation be in a position to unfairly make demands?
If parents fall out of love and one has an affair and chooses to move out, in my mind, the responsibility falls on the person moving away to offer a contribution to the children. That would seem fair and right.
If a parent has an affair and chooses to move to the person they are having an affair with AND they take the children, I don't think the better behaving person should be forced to pay directly to the ex because they didn't "cross the line". The wrong is clear. I would go as far to say that the person moving out shouldn't take the children, unless it's agreed between the parents.
In the case of DV, there is a clear wrong. The person causing the violence should be removed, and they should be expected to pay. In some DV cases, I can imagine that the DV person might feel wrongful removal, however, violence is seen as a wrong.
If rules were applied which identify the wrong doer, then it's much clearer about who should be expected to pay and who should be asked to pay and who should choose to offer to pay. It would be easier to determine how maintenance should be given.
Maintenance shouldn't be limited to money,
If an absent parent is able to look after the children for 3 weekends out of 4, then I can't see why the resident parent can't work some of the weekends, to supplement their income, more so it they are the one who did the "wrong" to cause the separation.
Everyone wants their weekends, agreed, however, "crossing the line" should come at a cost.
Maintenance is to maintain the child, a resident parent can maintain the child if they can earn an income without the child needing that parent.
Sadly it seems that the resident parent (not all cases) wants to have their cake and eat it, then they want to demand the absent parents cake and take a bite out that as well, while shouting (with their mouth full) that the maintenance is for the child.
In cases where both parents agree that they were both wrong, it should, in theory, be an easier process to form an agreement between them about how to look after and maintain the children.
I can't fairly see why n absent parent should have to see a counsellor because they refuse to pay maintenance (I am talking about me here). Why should I be classed as bitter when it wasn't me who "crossed the line"? Then I am forced to reward the wrong doer with money (and nothing else is good enough) and allow her (a "her" in my case) to spend the money as she chooses? I didn't stop the ex leaving, but I should have stopped her taking my son. I just didn't know the law, and in my eyes, the court has failed my son. Ex who was clearly wrong and "crossed the line" is now in a position to show my son that being wrong and getting away with it is also classed as a "correct" and it's ok to do.
To make matters worse, the ex then tries to give my son to a step dad and cut me out my son's life....errr, I don't think so. What is the ex showing the child now (keep in mind that I don't think my son should have been taken in the first place) that if one parent does wrong, everything they demand is also right.
Then I have to spend £30 000 to £40 000 to get a court order to see my son. Another wrong in my eyes, Ex had legal aid, I had to pay to get to see my son who shouldn't have left the family home.
To the few people who are so fixated on demanding money (and not accepting anything less than 15% of the absent parents income in cash), who are quick to suggest that I see a counsellor, in the hope that I get brainwashed into paying money to an ex who I know won't spend it on my son. It's not going to happen.
2 wrongs don't make a right, and in the secret family courts, there are few wrongs because no one wants to look at the past, ignore the wrongs and live on. If you make another wrong, don't worry, it's in the past, we keep living on and ignoring the bad behaviour, in a hope that it might go away one day.
There is no expectation for people to be polite. I mentioned earlier that I have been slated for refusing to pay my ex before. Another time might not be nice, but it doesn't kill.
I fight against injustice. Fortunately family courts are being more open in April. Sadly adoptions might stay secret, forced adoption being my pet hate. The good thing is that any bad behaviour by one parent could potentially be exposed in the media if that parent wants to be grossly unreasonable.
I know the CSA have liability orders on me, A liability order restricts me but it won't make me pay. It does however make me more determined to not pay. My determination does come at a price, but Martin Luther king had a good saying (I am not a Luther fan generally) - One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.
I am trying to find a way to end this post because I can't see the majority agreeing with me or reaching a satisfactory compromise. Would it not be better to agree to disagree?