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

Relationships

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you need help urgently or expert advice, please see our domestic violence webguide and/or relationships webguide. Many Mumsnetters experiencing domestic abuse have found this thread helpful: Listen up, everybody

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

264 replies

donners312 · 12/04/2016 15:18

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?

OP posts:
Baconyum · 14/04/2016 04:12

£400 for at least 2 children unlikely to cover half the basic costs of raising those dc. Car over uni - car may be an immediate necessity especially with more than one dc. If your dp thought you and he would do a better job them why didn't you go for and get residency ?

SanityClause · 14/04/2016 06:00

No, DadWasHere, you're right. No one can make a parent care for their DC. Forgive me if I don't feel sorry for men who have made babies they didn't want, though. It's not news that having sex has the potential to make babies.

The fact is, though, that men in our society are able to walk away from their children with little or no disapprobation. It's the women who are caring for the children they have made together that attract that.

As stated by other posters, upthread, this is not the case in the US, where "deadbeat" parents are viewed with the contempt which is reserved for single mothers, in the UK. (Not single fathers, though. Single fathers are seen as heroes.)

Offred · 14/04/2016 06:00

So what is your point SanityClause, a flavour of sour grapes? The OP asked if fathers cared, I pointed out some do not care simply because they never wanted to be fathers in the first place. Why should they be expected to care? Law can force them to pay but if your argument is those particular fathers are morally flawed because they choose not to care, I think you are plain wrong. Its wrong in much the same way society expected pregnant women, pre reproductive rights, to 'mother up' over their unwanted pregnancies because that’s what society and law deemed should happen.

Hmm

Morally every adult in society should care generally about the health and wellbeing of children in society.

Your attitude is irresponsible and immature.

Abortion is not a form of contraception and given men have never and will never experience pregnancy they have no concept of how it feels and no idea what they would do if they experienced an accidental pregnancy.

What exactly is the problem with expecting that men be adults, realise that if you have sex a baby may result (all contraception has failure rates) and that if that happens you will be that baby's father and there are consequences to you just walking away.

You did the sex, you take responsibility for the pregnancy. You don't get a say on abortion so you damn well better take your own precautions and expect to suck it up if they fail just like a woman is expected to.

It is absolutely not as simple as 'she could just get an abortion'...

Offred · 14/04/2016 06:05

And it is now that society just expects women to deal with accidental pregnancy.

In the past society did things like forcibly removing children that were born out of wedlock, starving single mothers, giving the children to the father as men were property owners and women and children were property to be owned, forcibly sterilising women from the 'lower classes'....

Just unbelievable your view that men can walk away without judgement if they decide after they did the sex that conceived the baby they didn't mean to after all...

tippytap · 14/04/2016 06:11

Offred, it's pretty much SOCIETIES view that men can walk away without judgment.

There are no penalties in the UK for men who fail to support their children. No penalties for men who don't see thier children.

Women are vilified for being single mums on benefits. Vilified for being working single mums. Yet women are expected to do the vast majority of child raising/child care with minimal help or support. We can't win. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

FanFuckingTastic · 14/04/2016 06:25

I am currently a female NRP and I don't pay maintenance. This has nothing to do with how much I love and care for my children, so I don't think that you can look at finances and declare it means one doesn't care when they don't provide maintenance. There is far more to look at than that.

In my case, the amount of maintenance I would have to provide is cancelled out by the costs of travelling to ensure I see my child regularly for our access weekends and holidays. My daughter gets what she needs without the need for maintenance between her parents, two emotionally involved parents who both provide homes and basic needs like clothing and food.

When I was the resident parent, the only time I ever felt the need to claim maintenance was when the other parent did not provide anything at all, no contact or contribution towards her wellbeing. I was happy to waive that when the money was better spent on contact and care. Because ultimately it's not about money, it's about what is in the best interests of the child. So long as both adults are working towards that, then I believe caring is implicit in these actions, maintenance or no maintenance.

tippytap · 14/04/2016 06:39

I disagree with you there. People have responsibilities to their children. Children aren't pay per view, but if maintenance is due, then it should be paid, even if the rp is just saving it for the child's future.

Baconyum · 14/04/2016 06:46

What's in the best interests of the child fanfuckingtastic is to be fed clothed warm and well.

It sounds like in your case it's six of one... As he didn't always pay maintenance either but I disagree cost of contact should be borne BY THE CHILD which is what is happening if you say I'm not paying maintenance because I need that money to see them. If money isn't what shows you care you wouldn't care about paying extra to see them.

FanFuckingTastic · 14/04/2016 07:11

Of course they aren't pay per view. That's just silly.

However where the difference means you would have to choose between paying maintenance and paying to travel for access, I'm pretty certain most parents would prefer the contact given that it is by far better for a child to have both parents in their life, rather than a bit more money.

My situation isn't that I have the money and choose not to pay it, because believe me if I had enough for both I would. Hence why I pointed out that financial provision is not the only way to judge caring for a child, no matter the gender of the NRP.

There is a mile of difference between someone who has no contact and pays no maintenance, and someone who has regular contact and forgoes maintenance payments to do so.

When I was aware that my DDs father would have to make a similar decision due to his financial situation, I was absolutely fine for him to do the same, because ultimately contact is far more important than maintenance in my experience. Hell, I even paid for all the transport, dropped her off myself with him, and gave him money to ensure he could manage to feed her while she was there.

This is what I mean about looking towards the best interests of the child. It's not about what ideally should be the case, but about being realistic and both doing your best for the child.

I'm confident that I put my all into doing what is best. The reason she isn't with me was because it was best for her not to be homeless with a disabled mum who was struggling to care for herself, and being in a stable home and school environment was better. It killed me to give up residence, but my feelings weren't really important, she was.

CreviceImp · 14/04/2016 07:29

If you fail to provide your share as a parent towards housing,clothing and feeding your child you aren't caring for that child.

Full Stop.

Even those who do manage to offer some sort of contribution - most of them are not doing their fair share for all the reasons outlined in the thread.

It is a gender discrimination issue to. Over 95% of parents who have to use the CSA/CMS to access their legal entitlement to child support are women. Most of the time the figures arrived at are not a true reflection of an equal contribution.

Then there is the matter of 4 billion pounds owed in child maintenance arrears.....

We are never going to have an equal society as long as this is allowed to continue.

What struck me reading this thread was the amount of scrutiny RP parents are under from NRP in terms of how maintenance is spent but that focus doesn't exist the other way around. I get the sense that there is an element of a continuation of financial abuse/controlling behaviour in some of these cases......

There are also the hidden costs ; the career compromised, the burden of child care costs, the time restriction to pursue interests, pensions etc. These cant be ignored.

Thank-you those who have added their support to the petition.

cannotlogin · 14/04/2016 07:33

because ultimately, it's not about the money

Very easy to say when it's not you having to find hundreds for childcare, or say no to something every other child already has, or when school shoes need replacing but you also need to eat.... Confused

Kennington · 14/04/2016 07:37

Caring about your child is about actions. The only thing your child will remember is if you were around for them and if they were fed and warm and cared for.
I don't know if dads who walk away and don't pay, care - I am sure they do - but the result won't be a positive memory if the child is not well provisioned for.

FanFuckingTastic · 14/04/2016 07:44

Our daughter doesn't require childcare, she's school aged and her father doesn't work, when she did require childcare, she was resident with me and I paid for it also.

We provide her other things equally between us, and we both provide a home, with clothing, food and other necessities each. If her father required money for an after school activity or school trip, I would provide that also. I provide school shoes, new jackets when she requires them, a mobile phone and other day to day things she doesn't need but likes.

I simply don't pay maintenance, that doesn't mean I don't provide financially for our child. In that manner, no it's not about money, it's about her having what she needs, something I've always provided.

donners312 · 14/04/2016 07:53

I agree crevice it is totally about control. whether it is a man or a woman who doesn't support their children, emotionally, physically or financially it is wrong.

I know a few men have posted that they or friends have taken on the role of RP and don't get maintenance - they seem to be quite sanguine in the attitude towards their Exs and good on them! Still think it is wrong and their ex should pay something.

A couple of mens comments have surprised me though and one really made me laugh (**" that is why many men don't want to get married and that is why there are so many desperate women in their 30's"!!! aye right!) and the man saying that some men just didn't want to be fathers in the first place (although don't think he was saying that as his own opinion)

and yes thanks to everyone who signed the petition i have had loads of support on FB for that so thanks again to the poster who shared that!!! The government definitely needs to look at this issue.

OP posts:
cannotlogin · 14/04/2016 08:27

Fanfuckingtastic, if that works for you and your ex, that's fine. It doesn't work for me, or indeed, thousands of other PWC and that we are not 'money grabbing bitches' because we expect a contribution to be made towards the upbringing of our children. You also only have one child. Try paying childcare for three on a very average wage and see how that feels, perhaps? All our circumstances are different. Many of us are really, really struggling.

CreviceImp · 14/04/2016 08:52

UNICEF have released a damning report on Child poverty in the UK
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britain-lagging-behind-developed-world-on-child-poverty-unicef-report-reveals-a6983291.html

Oswin · 14/04/2016 10:27

Happy. 400 month. 100 a week. There's more than one child. So let's say two kids I'm guessing.
So fifty pound per child per week.
Childcare at least 20 a week.
School dinners 15-20 a week.
Clubs 5 a week.
So that's the maintenance nearly gone.

Yet there's still food at home heating electric housing clothes shoes coats transport uniform all to pay for.

So don't give me bollocks that she blew maintenance on herself while spending nothing on the kids.

So you think if I earned enough to pay it all myself, I should not use maitenence to pay for things I should save it?
Are you mad.

Why should I pay 100 percent just because we split up?

If the family was still together then the father wouldn't be ok to not pay anything would he?!

All the stuff is getting payed for. If I pay 100 percent then I receive maitenence that maitenence then pays me back for half of it. Well less than half.

Why shouldn't it.

I'm trying to understand what's going on in your head where 100 percent costs should be met by the rp.
Is it angry second wife? Is it plain old misogyny? Or is it just lack of common sense?

ElderlyKoreanLady · 14/04/2016 10:31

The father has a right to question where the maintainence is going as it IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN.

Hmm no no Happy. The father doesn't have the right to question what maintenance is spent on providing the children's needs are being met. Honestly if my ex asked what I spent his maintenance payments on, I'd laugh hysterically. My finances are none of his business and DD is happy and healthy despite him not paying/doing his fair share.

You speak about this 'right' to dig into and dictate other people's finances as though you actually believe it. How very worrying.

cannotlogin · 14/04/2016 11:21

The father has a right to question where the maintainence is going as it IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN

my ex doesn't pay his bills, owes thousands and thousands, keeps his house with thick curtains the children aren't allowed to open so that his movements etc. are not recognisable to bailiffs, there are thousands and thousands of pounds of debt secured against his house....how in god's name would it be in the best interests of the children for someone like that to know where maintenance (if he ever pays it) is going?!

Seriously, happy, no one posting here has shown an inch of the bitterness you keep shouting about except you.

CreviceImp · 14/04/2016 11:40

THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN would be better served if the NRP made a more equal contribution to support their child/children.

CreviceImp · 14/04/2016 11:44

If anyone want to help with the campaign I am on Twitter @KerryAnnHoward2 or private message me x

chocolatemuppet · 14/04/2016 12:14

The situations described on here are as diverse as the people are. In my situation my ex and I share the children broadly 50/50 (I am classed as RP). I say broadly because I have them slightly the majority. We split all the finance around the children. He doesn't pay any maintenance, and he loves his children. All clothes / toys etc are shared and the kids can take whatever they like (within reason - ie not beds etc!!) to whichever house they are at.

My partner however, has his children slightly under 50/50, and has to pay maintenance through the CMS. His ex won't share any uniform / clothes / toys / anything. So he pays for them when they are there - and pays when they are with us too. It seems that although she is classed as the 'resident parent' - despite having them just over 50/50, she doesn't seemingly have to contribute anything. The rest of her wage, other than the maintenance, is made up of a small part time job (a couple of hundred a month) and tax credits.

The system is flawed. If 50/50, costs should be split in my opinion. I know the law now makes a proviso for that, but in practice it rarely happens. The child benefit is the gateway benefit and gives entitlements to whichever parent receives it.

FanFuckingTastic · 14/04/2016 16:02

Cannotlogin.

I have two children, I haven't mentioned the other here is all because I share his care 50/50 and thus maintenance is not an issue.

I do understand somewhat what it is like to be a single mother because I was one for seven and a half years, my daughter's father left me when I was nine weeks pregnant and I had to not only financially manage alone, but practically manage a pregnancy in a wheelchair with a toddler. I understand how difficult it can be, and I spent a long time angry about my situation. When there was an opportunity to initiate contact, despite this lack of financial support in the early days, I took it though, because ultimately my daughter felt the lack of a father far more deeply than the lack of material things.

I believe that maintenance should be something parents can rely upon being provided, and that if there is no other involvement from the NRP that maintenance is a minimum acceptable contribution to their care that should be enforceable.

But I don't believe that it is the solution in every case, given my own situation, therefore I support the idea that if alternative arrangements that both parties agree upon can be made, and if it is the best interests of the child, that it doesn't reflect upon that parent's level of caring. I cannot work to provide more than what I already do due to my disabilities, so protecting access is very important, I cannot see any case in which providing maintenance to the detriment of contact would benefit my child. All I am pointing out is that it's not a one size fits all situation, and that there are other ways that indicate caring very much about children. I travel sixteen hours at weekends to collect and return my child, alone and often in a wheelchair, it's such a hard thing to do, but I endure pain, nausea, fatigue at crazy levels and go without to ensure I can afford fares. It takes me days to recover from weekends, and I am often unable to manage to cook for myself or get out of bed for those days. Someone who simply didn't care would not go through that reliably and regularly.

I don't believe any parent should have to provide an accounting of how money is spent on children either, that is controlling. I am aware of the types of abuse many parents suffer from, being a victim in the past of emotional abuse during which financial abuse was a part of it, and I don't support making one parent financially accountable to another simply because they provide maintenance, that is ridiculous. The only time anything like that should happen is when it is Court Ordered and in the interests of making a decision about the best interests of the child.

howtodowills · 14/04/2016 16:12

chocolatemuppet
That system your DP and your ex have is the type of thing we have with my DP and his ex. (Although we are 70/30.)

What people don't understand is that saying the NRP should pay 50% of the child's costs to the ex is crazy as (in cases where contact and maintenance is established) they are probably already paying MORE THAN 50% of the total as they pay for everything for the kids at their house (NRP) and a significant contribution to the RP.

My set up is a bit like yours - me and ex amicable and sensible (eg I'll say "don't buy an extra set of football boots, I'll just send his when he comes to you" ) so ex doesn't have to buy two of everything. But DPs ex is difficult for the hell of it and kids have to have 2 of everything which is a complete waste of money.