CSA Payments and Proof of a Cheating Girlfriend...

MartinL_4

Soubrette wrote: »

Because the outcome is the same - a child and the circumstances behind it all are not the child's fault.

Sou

a child maybe the same outcome each time, and therefore it warrants the same conclusion, ie. you are the father, therefore you will pay, or you are not the father, sorry to have troubled you...

but...

the circumstances that led to that child coming into the world are all different. these are completely disregarded. that is sooooo wrong.

one example is, mothers may have had devious ways on getting pregnant, ie. lying to a partner about taking contraceptives, and 'catching' the father. if the father didn't want to be a father, and the mother got pregnant deliberately, then why should she not be forced to have to take on the entire responsibility of raising that child?

why should the man be punished? she choose to bring the child into this world, against the man's knowledge... tell me how that is fair?

looby75

MartinL wrote: »

well, if the father is in a better position financially to provide for the child, and he is willing to, then he should have the option to have the child live with him full-time.

the mother, who is not able to provide the best life for that child should be denied custody...

but what are the chances of that happening? slim, i'd say...

mothers seem to be able to have their cake and eat it... and that's not fair.

it seems the csa is anti-father. perhaps thats naive, but that's how it seems to me.

in your version of CSA I wouldn't have my kids with me, ex is financially better able to provide for the kids than I am, yet if they lived with him full time he would no longer be able to work all the hours he does, so then I would be financially better able to look after them so they would have to come back to live with me, but then I would no longer be able to work lots of hours so .......well you get the picture. Deciding who the kids should live with should never be about who has the most money.

Believe me being a lone parent is no picnic. Money doesn't help you with the emotional side of childrearing, and believe me that's exhausting when you have to be both mum and dad.

Soubrette

MartinL wrote: »

well, if the father is in a better position financially to provide for the child, and he is willing to, then he should have the option to have the child live with him full-time.

the mother, who is not able to provide the best life for that child should be denied custody...

but what are the chances of that happening? slim, i'd say...

mothers seem to be able to have their cake and eat it... and that's not fair.

it seems the csa is anti-father. perhaps thats naive, but that's how it seems to me.

Of course it seems like that to you because you are (probably) the father.

Have a chat to my ex - he spent 4 years not paying a penny of maintenance to our two daughters because I thought he was the kind of father who would always do best by his kids. In the 10 years he was with me and employed by his own company, he earned between £50 000 and £120 000 each and every year. He managed to pay out about £2000 a year on the girls (together). When I told him this wasn't fair he offered a tiny bit more so I went to the CSA. As he is a director of a limited company he has declared his income at minimum wage and not mentioned his dividends (which is how he takes most of his income).

This man, that lives in a detached 4 bed, runs two cars, has numerous holidays, eats only organic food and wears designer labels is pleased to pay £15 per week each for his girls.

If I were bitter then I would say the CSA were anti PWC but to be honest I've read enough on here to see that there are carp PWCs as well as carp NRP.

The CSA seems to find it very difficult to deal with dishonest people who do not want to put their children first in difficult situations.

Do not let yourself be one of the carp NRP, be the better person. Get the DNA test done and if the child is yours then be a better role model than it seems his mother will ever be.

Sou

MartinL_4

looby75 wrote: »

but the fact is either you are the dad or you aren't, nothing else matters. The fact she may have slept with the whole of the UK army won't change the fact that you are or aren't the dad. It really is that back and white. It has to be.

see my post above...

looby75

MartinL wrote: »

why should the man be punished? she choose to bring the child into this world, against the man's knowledge... tell me how that is fair?

ITA that its unfair in that kind of situation, but that's the way it is. If you have sex with a woman you automatically accept that there is a risk that she may get pg, even if you take precautions. No form of contraception is 100% effective, again another fact of life.

It's unfair but so is life.

MartinL_4

looby75 wrote: »

in your version of CSA I wouldn't have my kids with me, ex is financially better able to provide for the kids than I am, yet if they lived with him full time he would no longer be able to work all the hours he does, so then I would be financially better able to look after them so they would have to come back to live with me, but then I would no longer be able to work lots of hours so .......well you get the picture. Deciding who the kids should live with should never be about who has the most money.

Believe me being a lone parent is no picnic. Money doesn't help you with the emotional side of childrearing, and believe me that's exhausting when you have to be both mum and dad.

i never thought about that...

makes sense now that you've said it!

Soubrette

MartinL wrote: »

why should the man be punished? she choose to bring the child into this world, against the man's knowledge... tell me how that is fair?

It's not fair but it's not the child's fault.

A woman has non consentual sex and ends up pregnant - fair?

A man uses condoms but has pricked a hole in them - fair?

A man assures a woman he is sterilised but has lied - fair?

Life's not fair - but the child should not suffer.

I'm afraid I'm out of this conversation because you are waaay to caught up with what should be fair for you. As a parent you need to put your own needs to one side and think of the child. All this talk of the child just seems to make you focus more and more about how poor old you is doing and how unfair it all is :rolleyes:

Yep, you are in an unfortunate position, yes it is unfair. Guess what - life is like that sometimes and you have to suck it up.

If life was fair to you, it would be unfair on your child - which is fairer?

Sou

marksoton

MartinL wrote: »

but the outcome is black or white. you are either the father or you are not. you either pay or you don't. the amount is the same - regardless.

the circumstances behind it all are irrelevant, which is a travesty...

But what circumstances would change it ?

The mother of one of my children decided the best way to mend our failing relationship was to come off the pill without telling me and get pregnant. Does that mean i should not pay ?

The resulting mess when she decided she wanted to go through the CSA was unreal. It caused massive arguments with the mother of my other child who i had been paying quite happily for years privately. It meant i had to drag her through all the CSA garbage. End result, i barely see my stepson from that relationship anymore because of her anger. And all because this other woman decided to get pregnant on the sly and then insisted on going through the CSA ( even though i offered her more money privately ! ).

Was i bitter ? You bet i was ( and still am to an extent ). But there comes a point when you have to dust yourself down,grow a pair and just get on with it.

For you that time is now, get the DNA and go from there.

Kimitatsu

MartinL wrote: »

well, if the father is in a better position financially to provide for the child, and he is willing to, then he should have the option to have the child live with him full-time.

the mother, who is not able to provide the best life for that child should be denied custody...

but what are the chances of that happening? slim, i'd say...

mothers seem to be able to have their cake and eat it... and that's not fair.

it seems the csa is anti-father. perhaps thats naive, but that's how it seems to me.

Up until this post I had some sympathy for you :cool:

Most mothers will be less financially capable of looking after their children than the father because of the way the employers percieve women in the workplace, especially if you already have a child already.

So are you suggesting that women should be penalised for having to take time off to have the child and then if the father leaves and is better off financially then the father should automatically be awarded full custody?? It does not necessarily follow that the father is the best person to have full custody of the child just because he earns more than the mother. (The converse applies if the mother is the main breadwinner too).

Quick edit - Looby put it really well! Point is made!!

What I am missing here, is how is you refusing to do a DNA test getting back at your ex girlfriend. She names you as the father, you deny it, but refuse a test and the claim is awarded against you anyway. Sorry to be cruel but why does it matter to her - she slept with someone else anyway so it would suggest that she is really not that bothered as to what you think, I would imagine that by now she has resigned herself to being a single parent. The only people you are denying anything to, is yourself and your son, you are going to miss out on that first bit of bonding.

By your refusal to do a DNA test, and waiting for her to come to you, you are just resigning yourself to giving away 15% of your net salary for the next 19 years whilst being unsure - sounds to me like your ex is laughing all the way to the bank and you are prolonging your own misery.

Do yourself the favour and get the test. That way YOU are able to make the decision as to whether you are a part of his life (although I think you already know the answer to that)

The longer you dwell on this the more she wins....

MartinL_4

Soubrette wrote: »

Of course it seems like that to you because you are (probably) the father.

Have a chat to my ex - he spent 4 years not paying a penny of maintenance to our two daughters because I thought he was the kind of father who would always do best by his kids. In the 10 years he was with me and employed by his own company, he earned between £50 000 and £120 000 each and every year. He managed to pay out about £2000 a year on the girls (together). When I told him this wasn't fair he offered a tiny bit more so I went to the CSA. As he is a director of a limited company he has declared his income at minimum wage and not mentioned his dividends (which is how he takes most of his income).

This man, that lives in a detached 4 bed, runs two cars, has numerous holidays, eats only organic food and wears designer labels is pleased to pay £15 per week each for his girls.

If I were bitter then I would say the CSA were anti PWC but to be honest I've read enough on here to see that there are carp PWCs as well as carp NRP.

The CSA seems to find it very difficult to deal with dishonest people who do not want to put their children first in difficult situations.

Do not let yourself be one of the carp NRP, be the better person. Get the DNA test done and if the child is yours then be a better role model than it seems his mother will ever be.

Sou

now that is out of order. even i know that is inexcusable...

but my circumstances are vastly different from those of your ex-husband. however, i would like to think that i will never shrimp out on what my potentially upcoming son will need. he will have the best, believe me (once i know for sure if he is mine - but i was toying with the idea of waiting for as long as that took)...

since i started this post, i now believe i will get the test done, if only for the reason you mentioned above - to be a better role model than that cheating *****. someone already said, she'll get her come-uppance and i hope she does. i firmly believe what goes around, comes around...