Do dads that won't pay maintenance care about their children?

[donners312]

Just that really, I have posted a few times about my STBXH.

I would be interested if there is a way to see that men who won't pay do care and love their children as it is very hard to live with the fact that they really just don't seem to care?

How - I entirely agree with your very sensible position. You have nothing to feel guilty about.

As vertigo says the reason you may feel bad is socialisation along the lines of women do unpaid childcare, men do earning money. This is entirely spurious and sexist.

I completely agree also that men who complain that on separation they don't 'get' 50% of the children's time are men who chose not to step up and do 50% of the care before the relationship ended and their requests for 50% of the time are often about control and possession of the children and not about what is best for them.

And that is why shared parenting orders don't work.

They were never about care of the children and usually motivated by possession of them.

That is very interesting about how 50/50 hasn't worked in Australia.

I think from a common sense point of view it must be terrible for children to be put in that situation (I know there will be some families it works for) but can you think of anything more unsettling for a child than living half the time in one place and half the time in another?

It fails partly because of the impression and confusion the law caused.

Most disputes over care of the children are not resolved in court but it gives the impression that it is mandatory to have a 50/50 split no matter the interests of the child.

That is also happening here and in Australia and here it is not what the actual law says.

It detracts from the principle that disputes and separations should be resolved in a way that was beneficial to the child.

In Australia they did find that shared parenting worked in situations where there was no conflict and the decision was mutual but they also found that those parents did shared parenting anyway, before the law came in.

In medium conflict cases where decisions are made using alternative dispute resolution parents who provided most of the care prior to the split felt 50/50 was no mandatory and this resulted in poor outcomes for children and mothers and reports from fathers of more satisfaction but ultimate failure of the arrangement (because the decision was not motivated by their interests).

In high conflict cases that ended up in court and where an order was made it was the same.

There were also real concerns about the effect on victims of domestic violence.

It's my interpretation that it has failed tbh because it had not helped to resolve medium to high conflict situations (that require mediation or the courts) in a way that benefits the child.

It's the conclusion I drew in my essay. That the introduction of the law in Australia was motivated by pressure from men's rights activist groups and resulted in better satisfaction with the process for men but has damaged women who are less able to protect themselves from domestic violence and children who have shown measurable worsening in mental health.

I agree these court cases are mainly due to immature abusive men in a power and control ego state. They don't need court thet need extensive mental health intervention to help them grow up. Long term society needs to change so males can mature emotionally.

My situation is the opposite really - exh pays maintenance and half the mortgage (until ds is. 18) but doesn't have ds overnight as he has 'commitments' to a hobby.

Although after he has paid maintenance, half the mortgage and his own rent he still has double my total monthly income left - yet still talks about me bleeding him dry etc.

Coming from Sweden I have actually seen cases where 50/50 has worked quite well. But it has worked because both parents have been wholly committed to the thought that the wellbeing of the children must come first and that emotional/practical/physical price must be paid by the adults in as far as possible. It has meant adjustments like both parents agreeing not to move away. It clearly could not have worked if either partner had been abusive or violent or not 100% committed to the children. Nor could it have worked if new partners had not had the same attitude that the wellbeing of a child (any child) has high priority.

Yes, that's the case in Australia and I imagine it will be here too.

Shared parenting law is the wrong approach. It only works when it is not forced and when both parents are already committed to the child.

My ex was ordered to pay 150 euros a month (the bare minimum set in law) but he was unemployed so was able to wriggle out of it (thankfully doesn't affect us as the State pays it instead) but even then 150 euros doesn't even cover DD's share of the rent, let alone food, clothing, household bills etc.

We tried shared parenting, I still had to pay for everything except the food she ate at this (although for the first few months I paid for that too because he fucked up his unemployment benefits and delayed getting it sorted until my paltry savings (about 800 euros) had run out. I bought the clothes and sent them with her to his, I paid for all her medical bills and medicines. The only real financial contribution he made was the transportation costs because I don't drive. Shared parenting really messed DD up though and she's still paying the price for not having a secure attachment as a toddler as she was always going back and forth.

I'm always very suspicious of parents who did 5% of the parenting before the separation / divorce and suddenly want to do 50% afterwards .

I wonder where this great love and devotion for their children was for the past 5, 10 or 15 years .

This really is only relevant on a case by case basis. I my case my ex wife walked out on me and my young kids (4 & 1) for another man. So for me the shoe is on the other foot. I have the house and I am a fairly high earner. She on the other hand works for min wage. So I would be entitled to maintenance from her. But as I earn a good living and can happily support the kids it seems unfair to ask for maintenance considering money is tight for her and the man she left me for is a bum (not being spiteful, he really just uses her and does little). I just wish she could see the kids more but she moved some distance away. Likewise if things were different and I was struggling I would of course want her to help out with money.

I can imagine it's hard paying maintenance when you have no spare money but your ex has the house and is doing well financially. Then watching your ex jet off with the kids and new partner going on holidays etc, plus taking the credit for it. No acknowledgement that your money helped fun these treats. Especially knowing your money helped pay for it and you have no money left to treat your kids your self. This for me would be gutting. But of course that's just one scenario.

I suppose if I was paying maintenance if would always want to know if the money was being spent on the kids and not funding the personal lifestyle of the ex and partner. In an ideal world people would be fair and only ask for what is needed. But it's not like that in the real world and yes there are lots of parents out there not doing the right thing. Personally I think you have to look at it case by case.

I can't see how it is worth discussing this in general terms because there are as many different situations as there are people inolved.

In our case, dp pays ex an agreed sum each month for child maintenance, above the csa amount. Yup, fine. She got all the equity and all debts paid when they split. No problem.

Dp then pays for all school trips, holidays, pocket money, phone top ups, all clubs (dss does four different things), kit for all clubs, takes him to all activities, arranges and pays for all birthdays, buys school uniform and clothes to keep him kitted out at our house.

The ex almost never sees him. He lives with us. She works full time. In theory, she should be paying us. Over the whole Easter holiday she had him one night, two nights over the whole of Christmas break, two nights last summer holidays. There is no routine. She calls off continually, letting him down. She says it's because her new partner is "difficult". Oh, and she has asked for her maintenance to be increased "in case she splits up with him".

Dp is just doing the right thing by dss. He doesn't want to be in conflict with the ex. Quite right too (though I draw the line at her coming to our house and telling us we need new sofas!).

I think people whose partner pays their ex and who then go on to have more children they actually can't afford to support are idiots I'm afraid. There is only so much money to go around, all the children need to be supported.

That's a tough situation. I bet it puts alot of strain on your relationship and makes it hard for him to make a clean break from his ex. I feel for you both.

I does highlight the fact every case is different and people are getting screwed over on both sides. It's a shame people can't just do what is fair regarding their personal circumstances and the system is too simplistic. I do know that some parents genuinely have concerns over what the cash is being used for.

5% of males and 95% of females why do society have to keep being reminded dedicated about a tiny minority. Why does it always have to be about the menz?

It is entirely appropriate and necessary for there to be blanket rules IMO.

If you are the NRP and paying maintenance you do not get to comment on what the other parent spends their money on.

Once you pay the money it goes into the household finances, it is not ring fenced and it becomes the property of the parent.

If you have issues with the level of care the child is getting you take that up as a separate issue.

If you have no issues with the level of care or your issues are simply a trivial matter about a different way of doing things you STFU and leave the other parent to it.

"5% of males and 95% of females why do society have to keep being reminded dedicated about a tiny minority. Why does it always have to be about the menz?"

It's not about the 'menz' (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean) - it's about the children and who earns money and where the children live and who cares for them.

The 5% and 95% you quote is on who uses the csa, isn't it? Maybe where women are the higher earners men are less likely to use the csa? Who knows. dp should be making a csa claim against his ex. but he won;t - so your figures prove nothing do they?

But the fact this is so unbalanced is not a reason to go on about it always being the 'menz' - it's a reason to observe that we do not live in a fairly balanced society. Women earn less, they tend to be carers, when families break down women often have the kids live with them, men are higher earners so need to pay for the child's upkeep, men lose out by not having as much time with their kids (because they are working)....etc. It doesn't work out well for ANYONE.

I see what you mean, OutTo, but surely there is no rule that prevents a man from saying "yes, I'd like children but I would want to be the SAHP" or "I'd want shared childcare" or "I am not prepared to have children with you if you do not accept that I am an equal parent"?

Besides, plenty of women work too, many in fulltime jobs, and still manage to bear the brunt of child caring. Where is the law that says Mother has to be the one to remember doctors' appointments, organise birthdays, know exactly where everything is kept in the home and how to soothe dc out of a nightmare? A father who puts the effort and is prepared to negotiate with his partner before the marriage starts cracking up can be an equal parent: society isn't actually going to give a monkey's.

When dh and I decided to have children he was already employed in his profession and I (being a few years younger) had only just graduated. He took unpaid leave so that I could work part time in my profession; these days he would have gone for parental leave. It made money tight for a few years but was a good investment in the future family income (both earners now), in our marriage ( I feel pretty good about dh) and in our family (the children have benefited from having a dad who knows what their life is like in detail).

I think the rules in the UK are a mess. Friends here who have just gone through a divorce have kept it somewhat civil and their elder DC is struggling. My friend told me that the focus of the court was the DC. They had to decide where the DC would attend school and that is where they would live Monday - Friday (parents live in different towns and schools are set by your address). The DC live with their mother during the week. The father has them for 2 afternoons after school and one day over the weekend.

The courts here are also very strict about paying maintenance. Repeatidly not paying results in jail. It's also really looked down upon here to not pay. Non payment means you are a deadbeat parent.

Another aspect that I like about the American system is that they adjust taxes on income paid to an ex. If you are a higher rate tax payer the maintenance you pay to your ex is deducted from your pretax income and added to the ex's pretax income. All very fair IMO.

My dad was a single parent. When my parents divorced he got full custody of my sister and I. My brother was split between my parents. The court did what was best for my mother, not the DC. My brother ended up living with us anyway and my dad paid maintenance to my Mum, referring to it as the cost of messing up his marriage.

Not all men are useless. My DH would struggle with the 3 DC but honestly he could figure it out if he wanted to. He also earns enough to hire a super nanny (or two).

So whatyousee, what happens if a mum isn't naturally equipped to deal with that extra bit of parenting: what if it is a strain on the woman to keep track of appointments and waiting lists and all the rest of it?

Or is every single woman in the world born magically equipped to keep the plates spinning?

Speaking here as an absent-minded dreamer with absolutely no talent for housekeeping.

Well that's it really. Parenting is a mixture of skill and sense responsibility.

It is absolutely untrue that men are generally incapable being parents it's more likely that the reason many don't choose to do it or fail to keep it up is a sense that it is not their job.

Men who are lobbed in at the deep end when the female parent disappears just have to get on with it, just like many women are expected to.