fathers give more money to other's children than those they are biologically responsible for

[Shriek]

Please can someone refute this claim that I have recently come across..??

That the govt will deduct 20% of a father's income for supporting the children of a new girlfriend/wife, with which they have no relation, before considering the amount that should go to continuing to support their own existing children!!!

I am trying to understand the rationale here.. can someone refute this, or shed light on how this might make sense?

Mr judgy pants there is for sure no prospect for some who see their only way in life as one of being a pregnant girlfriend/wife/mum, BUT that isn't the child's fault, and is in the VAST minority of cases.

Generalisations about women's life-altering decisions around morning after pills, abortions (and all the rest of the contraception out there) are life-altering, and the women have to live with the resultant pregnancy and childrearing pressures (&joys) thereafter... All of this of course becomes a non-issue and saves everyone all the money if a man withheld his sperm? but sadly it seems that is just an impossibility even tho it is far and away simpler than the complexities, health risks, moral dilemma's and trauma's of the woman's part in this. Unfortunately the girls and women of the world have no choice but to take this seriously, and not everyone can make the decision to abort/keep a pregnancy, nor should they have to, and of course no contraception is 100% .. so frequently accidents DO happen, but again, they wouldn't without sperm! Non of these SO-CALLED 'baby-making' machines could exist without men anyway. It's such a sad indictment of OUR community in the UK that any young girl/woman could think that this is a good prospect, which is a more important task to wrestle with.

There's little point in saying "Oh well he should support his own kids before others" which is fine in principle but what about all those families who go on to have other children in stable relationships? Should those kids suffer? If he lives with other kids then it's a fact he has responsibilities to them as well. YES BUT THEY HAVE A FATHER WHO HAS RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEM, AND THEY SHOULD NOT TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER A MAN'S OWN CHILDREN, IS THE POINT SURELY?

And personally I find it quite rich that it's always father's who get a bad press here. In my experience it's far more likely to get maintenance out of a non-resident dad than it is for a non-resident mum - THERE ARE A VASTLY GREATER PROPORTION OF NON-RESIDENT MEN THAN WOMEN!!. I know a few dad's who are resident parents (myself included) and I'm the only one who gets any sort of maintenance. Even then I spend more than I get sending the kids to visit her. I am always impressed to hear of father's taking on responsibility for their children and at the same time greatly saddened that the mother plays less of a part, and I think services are probably geared more towards supporting women in this situation [becuase it is far more common].. but this OP was not meant to target [alll] men, but just that I had heard it in one situation where it was an non-resident father taking on another man's children meant less money went to supporting his own child, when those children already havew a father that pays maintenance to the mother, so she double's up on benefit, whilst his own child loses out. The same would apply if the mother was the non-resident parent.

In my situation, I have 3 children with my ex. His wife has two children from a previous relationship.

Say he earned £200 net per week. First the CSA deduct 20% for his wife's children (15% for one child, 20% for two, 25% for three or more), which would be £40 or £20 per child. That leaves £160.

My three then get 25% (same percentages as before) of that £160, which is also £40. Because there are three of them, that is £13.33 per child.

Then the remaining £120 of his net wage also goes into the household he lives in and benefits his wife's children, who already get maintenance from their own father (as they should of course). I have yet to see any argument to convince me that this is a fair scenario.

As it is, he's just quit his job and is no longer liable for maintenance, but that's another rant altogether...

I liked your suggestions so much I've gone and done it.

...changed my user name that is!

So, the NRP gets up to 20% deduction against their wages. 20% comes in at 3 children or more.

I assume that your problem wouldn't be with NRP having other biological children in a new relationship but with NRP taking a percentage off the funds available for their biological child(ren) when the other child(ren) aren't biologically theirs and therefore should be supported by their biological dad.

Lovely. In an ideal world.

Yeah, the biggest concern with the CSA is whether it's OK to let a NRP have a minimal deduction off their wages as an allowance for the resident children whom they are supporting.

If you want to get anti with CSA let's get anti about the fact that NRP's who do, and always have, paid aren't given any lee-way when the RP says they can not have contact. No reason other than bloody-mindedness..just NO.

CSA says that NRP has to pay up regardless and the fact that the RP says NRP has no contact means that RP gets paid more money by NRP whose child is being witheld.. despite the fact that NRP wants contact and is paying through the nose with money that could be being better spent on their resident, biological children and the non resident child for solicitors to sort out court orders.

So get a court order, sorted, right? Wrong.

NRP can't get CSA 'put back to rights' because, despite having copies of the very expensive court order the CSA says that RP has to 'confirm' all visits & RP just denies that NRP has had the child at all.

I'm in the same position. My dd's dad's girlfriend is about to move in. She will receive maintenance for her 2 girls from their dad while mine for dd, which I have only just started receiving after 2 years as a result of a detachment of earnings, will be reduced. It doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.

Mr 'judgy'pants. A long time ago I once probably had very similar views to yourself. That people should be more responsible for their children etc. etc. That single mums should try harder to work things out in their relationships, put their kids first etc etc.

Then one day I became a single dad. I'd tried desperately to make it work with my ex. But we were/are chalk & cheese. The old adage opposites attract was true in our case but it's a killer to share a life with someone who barely sees eye to eye with you on anything. Like many men I probably just assumed that she'd have the kids, I'd pay maintenance and see them at the weekends. That seemed to be the natural order of how these things happened.

But life had other ideas and i became the resident parent. With my life upside down I picked up the pieces and slowly met other single parents whom I naturally had something in common with. Everyone of them had their own stories of why things didn't work out. My reasons paled into insignificance compared to theirs. I soon learned that life is not so black & white as I first thought. That despite what the papers would have us believe that very few women purposely get pregnant just for a bigger council house. Most like me were in stable relationships which just didn't work out. Like me had tried desperately, sometimes way too long to make it work.

As for contraception, DD1 was conceived whilst she was on the pill. An important lesson that 99.9% effective does not mean 100%. Given the amount of women there are on the pill, getting pregnant is actually not as uncommon as you think. I've also had condoms break on me but fortunately no pregnancies as a result.

In short life is way more complicated than any formula can dictate. All we can hope for is something which works most of the time.

yep, its true then that an RP (mother, say) with 2 children of her own, who have their very own father who pays, or doesn't pay maintenance, can hook up with an NRP (say father), and takes the lions share of the maintennce from him for her kids over and above the father's existing commitment to his own child!!

There are SOOO many not receiving for their children, so how is it that a rule exists that allows double to some, for children that don't even belong, and were strangers until the couple newly got together. Just crazy, as we can see from the examples above.

Its so time for even handedness. If a new couple go on to have more children then ABSOLUTELY the father should have financial responsibility BUT ONLY EQUAL TO THAT HE HAD WITH HIS OTHER CHILDREN.. no one is more important than the other, especially when not even biologically linked.

Good name for you Mrniceguy

New scenario:
RP of 3 (4 counting step-son) and NRP of 1 earns £2000 per month.

He gets an allowance of 25% (working on optomists figures) of £500

NRP then gets 15% of 1500, which works out at £225 nearly half of what is 'allocated as reasonable' for the other 4.

Even on the premise that he should only pay for 'his' 3 children that's still not a fair division of the family funds (based strictly on pounds spent per child).

And before people say..well why have three more..you can't help having triplets!

My point being it's never going to be 'fair' accross the board without a total overhaul-and even then someone's bound to feel they've come off worse.

I've always said that the greatest unfairness is that the RP is expected to contribute up to 100% of their income to raising the family, whether the RP likes it or not.

The NRP gets a much, much lower % responsibility.

Shriek..I agree it should ONLY BE EQUAL.

As regards 'not even biologically linked' that a lot of posters are referring to..nice attitude

and as for "a rule exists that allows double to some, for children that don't even belong " WOW!

linerunner if any reponsibility at all in some cases :(

I didn't really understand that part of your post, Shriek, that anklebiter refers to - 'children that don't even belong'. Could you explain it a bit more, do you think? That would be helpful.

'belonging' probably gives a wrong impression. I am using the word to mean that each biological parents children 'belong' to them in terms of responsibility, and is where actual responsibility lies. I certainly am not suggesting for one minute that all children whomever they 'belong' to shouldn't be taken care of in any less of a way, other than the biological parents being made to be their number one priority for their offspring over and above others, as all kids have biological parents and this system allows a rp to receive from 2 fathers, when the father already has a primary commitment to the child/ren he/she created, applying to all biological parents EQUALLY.

'children that don't even belong' as in children that are unrelated and only 'taken on' as they live in the home that a NRP moves into and consequently first call taken financially for them reducing existing payments purely as moving into those circumstances. Have to admit being a little tired now at this end of [particularly difficult] week, and perhaps losing the ability to best express. I realise it is a very sensitive issues and I'm really not trying to be 'ist' in any sense, just insensed that this situation does aactually seem to exist.

single parent will be even more financially vulnerable under this system, as already posted earlier

did my explanation of meaning answer your posting 'anklebitersmum'??

I don't understand why you say 'nice atitude' to biological parents responsibility (it is supposed to be the law that the parents are responsible).

or why the 'WOW'

I understand your point about costs per child, and why you make it, but I'd have to agree that it seems fair to give a smaller percentage per child after the first one, as subsequent children do cost less. One adult living alone has an exponentially larger outlay than each additional adult joining the house and sharing the costs of heating, lighting, even food shared is cheaper than for one, economies of scale mean that smaller amounts cost more per gram, etc. Please don't think I am attempting to negate the huge costs involved in raising triplets, which is unique in that you do actually need 3 of everything all at the same time and if you had these as a complete surprise, respect at still being legible at the end of the day! ;)

.. and no certainly, life far from ideal, but life should still have ideals, one being that biological parents in the eyes of the law, mean ultimate and primary responsibility for the offspring they produce, always, financially (and emotionally, excluding cases of abuse or neglect).

If you are RP with 3(4) children
NRP started new family and has created another child with new partner

NRP should give you highest priority for responsibility for triplets, but then has his own with another partner that should also trigger a new percentage of its own, but not over and above his outlay for 3.

.. but I might have misunderstood exactly the NRP/RP set up.. i checked it a few times, but its now late again!

lol shriek, my situation is complicated to say the very least...let's just say that I can see this with clarity from all angles :o)

I can't help feeling that no solution will ever work for everyone.

Since the industrial revolution our socio-economic model is based on the nuclear family. The 1950s nuclear model frequently lauded as some sort of 'golden age' but the 1950s model is a relic of the past. It doesn't apply to the majority of families anymore, and indeed, it only ever applied to a very small segment of society for a very short period in history if truth be told.

So when we start thinking about blended families and how best to support them, I think we need to come up with a completely new solution. We need to recognise that this is fast becoming the norm, rather than the odd exception.

I don't know what the answer is, but I think just as it's recognised that few people can afford to pay for private education and health care and so we provide a free NHS and education system, a similar approach needs to be taken to family. It needs state subsidy, which is kind of what tax credits do (though they are ridiculously complicated and expensive to implement and could be made a lot simpler). Capitalism has taken away the family's support network - all the things that reduce the family's burden on the state - so if we continue to put economic growth at the top of the hierarchy of needs, then the state has to plug the gap its created. Either that or the way to encourage better relationships is to create policies that create social cohesion, which means not encouraging people to move around the country pursuing jobs while severing any link they have with family and friends who would help them out with childcare or in times of need/economic hardship.

Unless we want to go down the route of refusing to allow separated parents to have further children with a new partner, this isn't an issue that is going to go away. And it is impossible for all but the high earners to pay sums of maintenance that reflect the true cost of raising a child while still supporting themselves and a new family. It means people could be paying for a mistake (having a child with the wrong person) for the whole of their lives. Of course, some might say that's a good thing and might make people think harder about having children, but it doesn't take into account human nature and fallibility and none of us have crystal balls.

no, you are sorry you were called up on it. not that you said it, and it wasnt taken the wrong way.