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).

N1 you are being unjust to your child and therefore you are part of the problem.

And N1, could you stop giving people on advice on other threads please!?

I nearly hauled you up on it on the POF thread and the thread about the boy who wants to know why his grandparents don't want to see him, but I think it is bad netiquette to drag things from one thread do another....

BUT SERIOUSLY N1, PLEASE STOP GIVING PEOPLE 'ADVICE'. You're not equipped. And that's an understatement. You aren't even trying to move on. You haven't looked inwards for a split second. Your own coping mechanisms are selfishness, denial and blame.

It disturbs me to see you trying to 'help' other people on different threads.

Go and seek that independent counselling I was talking about fifty posts back.

Sorry Liffey but I just spat tea at the computer laughing at that one!

These are very emotive issues. I don't believe higher earners show pay to lower earners (the spouse) if the spouse works full time and just happens to earn less. I don't agree it was fair my ex got so much money on the divorce just because he happened to be married to me but that's a different topic.

The questionl of payments for chidlren is different. It is very expensive brining them up and the one they don't live with usually doesn't appreciate the daily cost. My solutino is forcring parents to have chidlren one week on and one off, both working full time and neither paying anythnig to the other. Then both parents will get the daily requirements for mnoey at school, new socks and the like.

My ex has chosen to pay nothing in 6 years since the divorce. I ceratinly wouldnt' demean myself by demanding any as we can manage without him. I am much more concerned he chooses to have no relationship with some of teh children and very little with others but that just illustrates his deficiencies and why the divorce was necessary. How he can live with himself not seeing some of them and indeed not paying anything is another matter.

The problems come frmo men not getting the contact they should have. If men pulled their weight and had children 50% of the time more mothers could work full time. I have to work full time, find childcare sometimes from 5am to 9am, be away on busniess and manage 5 chidlren albeit the older ones manage themselvse and pay for them. I have never bothered to go to the CSA and our court order anyway says whoever they live with I pay school and university fees but I would have hoped he might have felt some moral imperative even to buy birthday presents for the older ones but sadly some people of either sex are just strange and silly.

Xenia, if you've read this whole thread, you'd know that it's a good thing this child doesn't live half of his time with his father.

I dont 'demean' myself either by asking for money. But it does mean that my children's one and only childhood is significantly less 'privileged' than either my own or their fathers. As much as I would like to work, I know that my children's mental well-being would be jeopardised by time spent with their father (who is of an identical mindset to N1). I'm glad for their sakes that they aren't toing and froing between us. That wouldn't be right for them.

Dittany, I completely agree with you.

A mum doesn't demean herself by asking for money for her children from someone who ought to be paying their share. What a weird concept.

My kids would rather die than live with their dad half the time even my little one who sees him regularly. She knows that there are limits on their relationship and that seeing too much of him is a bad thing. Were children to be forced into relationships with people they did not want to relate to I would think it was abusive.

But you could work full time and have the chdilrenw ith you like loads of single parents do which is often the only way anyway to ensure thtat children can eat when there are no men around to support them. Anyway may be you don't have skills in an area where what you'd be paid is more than the cost of an au pair or childminder. I don't know.

I haven't read the thread. I tend to assume most of what separated or divorced couples say about their spouse if largely untrue and I suppose that as much to me with my own bias as anyone else. Most fathers dont' hurt their chidlren and children benefit from spending time with them and even if it were time with him but with an after school au pair or child minder it would enable you to earn to keep them etc too.

Errrm I do work full time and I am a single mum too, viola!

I am not sure what you are talking about Xenia except to suggest that if children see each parent for a week the state would not have to pay so many benefits?

Some children do not want to see both their parents and we should never assume that something is good for them as adults without letting them have a say. If a child wishes to see their mum or dad less or even more I think there should be no set rules but that is what should happen.

Dittany I believe them as well!

I have a certain amount of sympathy for someone who doesnt want to read N1's POV.

i haven't read the whole thread but people do get so upset on divorce and with children and I do think there are huge injustices done to men every day every time there is an assumption children should spend more time with a mother than father and if we changed the law to be 50% with each then things woudl be a lot fairer, then any benefits divide by two to man and woman and no one supports the other or the children as you support them in the time you are with them. Then of course if there really is a good case for an abusive mother or abusive father not to be with the other then that could be made but the starting point woul dbe 50% of time with each. Plenty of children manage that very well.

Xenia you are repeating what you said before and to repeat my answer children should have more power and make more of the choices. Once the law dictates it will make far more problems.

Your feeding his delusion here Xenia. N1 is not a 'regular Dad'.

He thinks that a huge injustice has been done to him, he has such contempt for his x because, em, she left him, that was it.... however, despite his deluded ramblings and distorted thinking (including comparing himself to Martin Luther King) it actually turns out that 1) he is so determined to contribute nothing he admits he'll go to jail, and has even already changed jobs 6 times in 5 years, 2) he does see his son 3) he still hates his x and considers himself the victim in all of this.

I haven't read his posts so I cannot say.

You certainly get all kinds of nutters bringing family cases including mothers as well as fathers and all manner of injustices including mothers who won't allow contact too as well as people who hide their money to avoid paying.

I certainly agree that a child of 11 or possibly 13 should decide where they live and I k now someone who waited to divorce until his youngest was 13 and then both children chose to live with him. If he'd done it when the youngest was 11 whatever the child wanted they woudl have been forced to be with the mother.

Would anyone really want there children to spend 50% of their time with a father that might not be interested in what is best for the childs welfare.

I know I wouldn't. I have been a working single parent and only receive a tiny amount of maintenance which I put away for my child. Much rather that than her spend time with an ex that couldn't care less about her. We have managed with little help from the ex and I wouldn't have it any other way.

Oh FGS it is so childish to talk about "fairness" in relation to family law and divorce. There is no such thing as fairness in parenting. Fairness is not the main issue when deciding where a child should live, the child's welfare is the main issue. And if that is unfair to one or both of the parents, then so be it, because a child's welfare comes before simplistic, childlish notions of fairness.

It's just too complicated to look at what is fair.

From a financial situation there is no such thing as one size fits all. A woman bringing up a child may be capable of supporting the child. If she gets into a new relationship the new family may be very comfortable. The father may be on a low income or he may be rich and spending money on luxuries left right and centre whilst the resident parent struggles.

It's so emotive but every case cannot be looked at individually therefore the 15% plus is a solution. Absent parents just accept it and provide, simple as?

I agree with Xenia that there are huge injustices done to fathers every day - particularly where women refuse to make a financial contribution themselves.

This being said, there are equally a lot of complete tosser fathers out there, who lie to themselves and to other people and wriggle like a fish on a hook in attempts to abdicate their responsibilities.

Fucking pathetic - both camps. It's time the law was harder and clearer. Catch the men and make them pay. But also, make sure that women too make a financial contribution.

I have rarely met a divorecd father who wouldn't be a good father and wouldn't love and give time to a child when it lives with him. People usualyl step up to teh plate when responsibility is given to them and too many mothers diss absent fathers who if they had the children half the time would simply ensure they did do a good job. I am talking about most fathers here, not all of course just as a good few mothers dont' do a very good job and it would be better the father had the children 100% of the time. It's all very sexist as it currently stands against men.

The CSA or whatever it is now or going to be called at least have some simplicity to them 15% of net pay for one children with deductions for the nights with the other parent and parents often make arrangements which are outside of the CSA if they choose too but the right of fathers to give up work , lookafter the new baby and let their rich new wife work so they don't haev to pay more than their state benefits to the first family is wrong, as is the motehr who denies the father contact. Divorce brings out the worst in people on both sides.

HerBLB I could not agree more.

This is about kids not parents. The relationship between the parents and their children should be seen from the child's pov. It is not about what each adult wants it is about what is best for the child and what they want. Where children can be involved (and I dont think age matters that much here) it should be all about their choices and their rights and if the adults have a problem with that they should be made to suck it up.

As far as maintaining children is concerned it is a disgrace that this country is leaving many of these kids in poverty because the system is so incompetent. Parents should realise that they have a moral obligation to pay for their children and that whatever arrangement is made they maintain that child's lifestyle to the best of their ability regardless of their decisions about how they live their own lives.

I believe that a child is a responsibility not a right and that the rights lie with the child.

Xenia, this thread wasn't started with 'most decent fathers' in mind.

Your utopian views are flawed in reality even when the parents are ma and pa walton. On this thread they are even more off the radar.

To NI, they guy who would rather go to prison than pay child maintenance. If your and yours exes finances were scrutinised and it was calculated that she was in a postition to bring your children up without financial support from you. i.e she was better off financially would you object to putting money away in trust for your child for when they reach 19, 21?

If not why not. Perhaps you should go down this line, if acceptable legally.