Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Parenting

For free parenting resources please check out the Early Years Alliance's Family Corner.

Original poster

This feels like financial abuse, how is it legal?

91 replies

Hirtui · 01/02/2023 12:12

i am in a good career but working my way up so still on a low ish salary. The career has lots to go at though and I invested a lot of money in uni courses to get here.

my ex partner is ten years older and established in the same industry and earning 100k. He is refusing maintenance and now has taken a sabbatical for 12 months, due to start in a month which is two months before I am due to go back to work. I literally cannot afford to go back to work with the childcare costs. I am not eligible for help and my rent is as cheap as can be for the area. I am stuck. I am devastated as I will be able to re join the career at a later date but my career will also be extremely damaged by taking time out, not to mention I have no idea what other work I will now do, probably nothing? Am I supposed to get a loan out while our child’s father keeps his money? It feels like financial abuse and yet this is legal?

OP posts:
HagridTheGiant · 01/02/2023 16:39

MeMyCatsAndMyBooks · 01/02/2023 14:34

Your right it shouldn't be this way but unfortunately you choose to have a child with a waste of space.

Well I assume she is not clairvoyant and didn't know he was going to be a waste of space after they split.
Why do you feel the need to take cheap shots at the woman left struggling and picking up the pieces -yet again - while a man can just walk away unencumbered?

Pumpmonkey · 01/02/2023 16:46

MeMyCatsAndMyBooks · Today 14:34
Your right it shouldn't be this way but unfortunately you choose to have a child with a waste of space.

what a foul thing to say to someone who is already struggling.

If you've never been married to someone who seemed like a good, moral, responsible person whilst married who then changed after kids, over time and almost unrecognisably once split then lucky, lucky you. And it IS luck, not judgement.

I have many friends whose ex’s became assholes once they left them. Many of them seemingly highly moral beforehand.

Original poster
Hirtui · 01/02/2023 17:20

Not had chance to read the whole thread yet but those saying marriage would provide financial protection… yes of course it would. What I am saying it is shouldn’t be the case that a woman must marry to ensure a father pays for his child.

i actually have my own reasons for not marrying. I have significant financial investments. I shouldn’t have to alter my life to pay the father’s share of finances towards his child.

those saying marriage is a contract that protects you, yes it does. But it shouldn’t be that way. Please look beyond this and stop imposing women to be bound legally to men to ensue men step to THEIR responsibilities towards THEIR child.

OP posts:

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about this subject:

General parenting
Original poster
Hirtui · 01/02/2023 17:21

@Pumpmonkey thank you for highlighting this. @MeMyCatsAndMyBooks as it happens my ex partner became a raging alcoholic. And no, he wasn’t when we met, otherwise guess what, I wouldn’t have had a child with him.

OP posts:
piggijg · 01/02/2023 17:40

What mechanism would actually do this? You can also walk away from your child. The state will not compel you to look after your child either. Their is simply no appetite for spending hundreds of thousands of pounds in legal fees of public money to try and pursue deadbeat dads. I do think it should be a criminal charge to not pay your CMS. But again, enforcement takes money.

coodawoodashooda · 01/02/2023 21:48

SpinningFloppa · 01/02/2023 16:23

Legally it isn’t.

Show quote history

I know but it should be.

Xenia · 01/02/2023 21:51

Sadly whether married or not the non resident parent who chooses not to work (even if their new wife/partner earns £1m a year and leaves them at home with the new baby of second relationship) is obliged to pay nothing. I htink the courts should force that person to do the child care 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday if they are not working but I doubt that will be a law change any time soon.

taxpayer1 · 01/02/2023 21:55

Xenia · 01/02/2023 21:51

Sadly whether married or not the non resident parent who chooses not to work (even if their new wife/partner earns £1m a year and leaves them at home with the new baby of second relationship) is obliged to pay nothing. I htink the courts should force that person to do the child care 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday if they are not working but I doubt that will be a law change any time soon.

Maybe because what you are proposing makes no sense.

Original poster
Hirtui · 01/02/2023 22:01

@taxpayer1 what people are trying to say is that raising a child should be split equally between the mother and the father. @Xenia ‘s point is exactly that

I shouldn’t be in a position where I may have to pause my job because my child’s father won’t pay HIS SHARE of the care for his child. It really is as simple as that. When that doesn’t happen, it largely falls on you, the tax payer, to foot the bill, which is again wrong.

OP posts:
MGee123 · 01/02/2023 22:14

Hirtui · 01/02/2023 17:20

Not had chance to read the whole thread yet but those saying marriage would provide financial protection… yes of course it would. What I am saying it is shouldn’t be the case that a woman must marry to ensure a father pays for his child.

i actually have my own reasons for not marrying. I have significant financial investments. I shouldn’t have to alter my life to pay the father’s share of finances towards his child.

those saying marriage is a contract that protects you, yes it does. But it shouldn’t be that way. Please look beyond this and stop imposing women to be bound legally to men to ensue men step to THEIR responsibilities towards THEIR child.

It's called a pre-nup OP. And look at it the other way. If you'd got married he'd have been legally obliged to you and you wouldn't be in quite such a mess. Marriage isn't a one way track about protecting the woman, it's about protecting both parties. In reality, in our society women are often still the lower earner in the partnership and therefore they are usually the more 'protected'. Appreciate this is probably all rather irritating advice though, given you can't change the fact you didn't marry. I don't think there is much you can do to be honest - if he isn't earning, there isn't anything for you to claim. It's crap but best to look at other avenues.

Clariana · 01/02/2023 22:25

I am confused, you say you didn't marry because you have "significant financial investments", so okay I understand why you didn't marry, but in that case surely you can afford childcare?

Absolutely, he should pay his share, but you are not actually in a position where you can't afford childcare are you?

NearlyMidnight · 01/02/2023 22:27

If OP gave up her job and said she wasn't paying for her child to eat and for somewhere to live the child would be removed and it would be abuse. (PP)

Really?? There's a thread every week about a woman who gets pregnant with someone she's known five minutes but doesn't want to terminate. Everyone says "see what benefits you can get". And millions of women with kids choose to live on benefits. Choose to get pregnant knowing they have no means of support except the state. I don't see their kids being taken away.

Not condoning any behaviour - one way or another - but it's not only men who don't pay for their kids.

taxpayer1 · 01/02/2023 22:28

Hirtui · 01/02/2023 22:01

@taxpayer1 what people are trying to say is that raising a child should be split equally between the mother and the father. @Xenia ‘s point is exactly that

I shouldn’t be in a position where I may have to pause my job because my child’s father won’t pay HIS SHARE of the care for his child. It really is as simple as that. When that doesn’t happen, it largely falls on you, the tax payer, to foot the bill, which is again wrong.

I understand but you cannot force people to work or new partners to provide for a child that is not hers. As a PP said, if you (the mother) don't want to provide for your children, SS will take them from you. They won't force you to work and pay for them or put you in jail. The same is you want to study or reduce your hours. Nobody will force you to work. Why you can have the option, but he can't? Maybe he really needs a sabbatical, maybe he wants to change his career. If he is not working, he cannot pay. If he is working, he has to pay according to his salary. Unless is he rich, he won't last long without an income.

taxpayer1 · 01/02/2023 22:31

NearlyMidnight · 01/02/2023 22:27

If OP gave up her job and said she wasn't paying for her child to eat and for somewhere to live the child would be removed and it would be abuse. (PP)

Really?? There's a thread every week about a woman who gets pregnant with someone she's known five minutes but doesn't want to terminate. Everyone says "see what benefits you can get". And millions of women with kids choose to live on benefits. Choose to get pregnant knowing they have no means of support except the state. I don't see their kids being taken away.

Not condoning any behaviour - one way or another - but it's not only men who don't pay for their kids.

Exactly.

Inca22 · 01/02/2023 22:32

I completely agree with OP. Marriage is beyond antiquated and I think you shouldn't have to be married to protect your children.

hopeahead · 01/02/2023 22:34

If it helps I was married to my fathers children. It didn't make a blind bit of difference. He refused point blank to contribute to his children financially CMS have been taking legal action against him for years. I requested 50/50 split in court so I could work (I had a good job, highly educated etc) again he refused in court point blank that he would not care for nor help with childcare. I found out that the courts can't make a parent take responsibility for their children. It was the strangest experience of my life. I was trapped into a benefit system by the legal system. It's a miserable life.

Original poster
Hirtui · 01/02/2023 22:35

taxpayer1 · 01/02/2023 22:28

I understand but you cannot force people to work or new partners to provide for a child that is not hers. As a PP said, if you (the mother) don't want to provide for your children, SS will take them from you. They won't force you to work and pay for them or put you in jail. The same is you want to study or reduce your hours. Nobody will force you to work. Why you can have the option, but he can't? Maybe he really needs a sabbatical, maybe he wants to change his career. If he is not working, he cannot pay. If he is working, he has to pay according to his salary. Unless is he rich, he won't last long without an income.

Show quote history

@taxpayer1 yes I see your point. In this situation he has enough savings to still provide - far more than the 6k limit to claim benefits so really he should be forced to use his savings.

@Clariana if I remove my investments then that security falls away. Why should I have to do that, because the 50% financial input from the father is not there?

@Inca22 - yep, it’s outdated and it’s a sad state of affairs that women need to marry a man to ensure that man pays for their child. Absurd.

OP posts:
Original poster
Hirtui · 01/02/2023 22:38

hopeahead · 01/02/2023 22:34

If it helps I was married to my fathers children. It didn't make a blind bit of difference. He refused point blank to contribute to his children financially CMS have been taking legal action against him for years. I requested 50/50 split in court so I could work (I had a good job, highly educated etc) again he refused in court point blank that he would not care for nor help with childcare. I found out that the courts can't make a parent take responsibility for their children. It was the strangest experience of my life. I was trapped into a benefit system by the legal system. It's a miserable life.

@hopeahead so sorry to read this. This is EXACTLY why I consider it to be a form of abuse. Whether legally classed as abuse or not, it should be, because it IS.

At least you have your children fully in your life and I try to remind myself everyday that as cringe worthy as it sounds, you can’t put a price on that and I am lucky to have our daughter. Doesn’t make it ok that things aren’t changed, though! My ex also didn’t want 50/50, hes selfish and money obsessed, very much wants his career.

OP posts:
hopeahead · 01/02/2023 22:38

*children father 🤦🏻‍♀️

hopeahead · 01/02/2023 22:41

It is completely financial abuse.
It's a devastating experience.

Clariana · 01/02/2023 22:42

@Hirtui

Yes, I absolutely agree with you, it is wrong that the other parent isn't taking responsibility for your shared child. You should not be in this position. The law should make the responsibility shared.

But, it doesn't and fortunately you seem to have options, so hopefully you won't be too badly affected.

GordonShakespearedoesChristmas · 01/02/2023 22:43

OP I get that you're angry. I have been through it but back in the days where there was even less than the pittance now.
But why are you not answering posters who have suggested UC etc? There is an answer to your immediate problem, even though it's not an answer to the huge inequalities that are still there in life.

Travelfan2021 · 01/02/2023 22:48

This reply has been withdrawn

This post has been withdrawn at the poster's request due to privacy concerns.

LaurieFairyCake · 01/02/2023 22:50

You use your 'financial investments' to pay for childcare etc until he goes back to work and you can claim CMS

He's unlikely to stay out of the job market forever and when he goes back you have two choices:

  1. 15% of his take home will pay for childcare

OR

  1. He has her 50% of time and he can pay for his own childcare
Flowers
TheShellBeach · 01/02/2023 23:19

This is why it's essential to be married when you have children, and your husband earns a lot more than you do.