Should blame be part of the equation

PlayingHardball

I think the whole idea of this thread is wrong. Sorry, but it is never one person that ends the relationship. if the 'relationship' was solid and 100% intact....need I say more?

Regardless of one night stands or planned pregnancy, liability is liability, whatever is set out by those in authority and by set guidelines, that is what the 'child' is entitled to. 15,20,25%....depends on how many times you 'go for it' You 'do' the crime, you pay the 'time'. I am shocked to hear GG say 'pay minimal'. Go on GG, go out there, have some fun! No reprocussions! I don't think this thread is really helpful for those of us out there who need useful advice regarding CSA. Hope others will see it for what it is.

GG- what is your objective in this thread?

AsknAnswer

The man has the option of covering it with a condom.

No glove no love.

iceicebaby

I disagree. the man should wear a condom to protect himself not only from getting the woman pregnant but also from STI's. So if he doesnt wear a condom then thats his look out

Gorgeous_George

PlayingHardball wrote: »

GG- what is your objective in this thread?

From my earlier thread I concluded that some of the NRP's 15% is spent on the child and some of it is not. I think that if the PWC is at fault they should not profit from the child care arrangements.

One way to remedy this injustice would be to have different percentages depending on the circumstances of the relationship breakdown.

GG

LizzieS_2

chriszzz wrote: »

So parents can behave badly??

You read my post wrong. I was referring to first 2 posts of good nrp faultless in breakup pays less, bad nrp pays more.

but as long as we support the children with the finances that makes it all good?

Again you misinterpretted the meaning

I think children wouldnt give a damm about the money as long they have the love of their parents, its only the parents that give a damm about the money.

Agree with you there. Ironically children expect more these days, but do not care where it comes from.

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

From my earlier thread I concluded that some of the NRP's 15% is spent on the child and some of it is not. I think that if the PWC is at fault they should not profit from the child care arrangements.

One way to remedy this injustice would be to have different percentages depending on the circumstances of the relationship breakdown.

GG

I realised where you were coming from with your first post. You seem to be avoiding the obvious pitfall - who decides who is to blame? The concept of blame was taken out of divorce proceedings years ago, for the reason of it benefiting the legal professions more/inequality between a paying divorcee and a legal aid divorcee. Realisically only a court can decide blame, which means a potentially more expensive exercise to fulfil your ideas.

frugallass

the whole 'who did what to who' is totally irrelevant imho - they both created the child and they both (hopefully) want the best for the child therefore they both provide for the child

I booted out my ex, so that's my fault the relationship broke down BUT I booted him out because of his drinking / financial mismanagement therefore that's his fault.

Who decides what is deemed as 'fault' ? will we have a 'fault form' to complete ? will there be different levels of 'fault'?

GG this is the most ridiculous suggestion I have heard - are you winding people up on purpose?

Blonde_Bint

maybe GG is just having a wonder Frugallass

there should be incentive out there for people to try to stay together, sadly I believe that all the incentive and benefit is aimed at splitting. I would have been better off financially and emotionally if I had left my husband. and my daughter would too. thats a fact.

I get myself and my daughter away from my husbands abusive ex and me and my daughter would no longer have been handy for my husband to blame his ex's actions on. there would have been more benefit to me leaving my husband.

However, the absolute cr*p is now behind us (i hope) and we should for the forseeable have the family life that I wish we could have had over the past 10 yrs. The system is such at the present time that it is much more advantageous just to leave. Many people would not take the sh*t that I did.

Blonde_Bint

Heres something really touchy.

I think divorce should be very difficult almost impossible to achieve. It should be made clear before they marry what they are doing and that the only way out is in a box. try to make people stay together. No more living in sin lol either.

A marriage between 2 people is hard enough, but when you add a third person to your families finances who gets a very big say in your finances then it makes a second relationship almost impossible. its not always about handing a percentage of cash over its more about someone else outside your household being able to say, I want an extra 10er this month. or you cant go and do x on that date because I want you to do this. sometimes it feels like you dont run your own life someone else does.

bdt1

Here here Blonde Bint :beer:.

We also have a bitter, rather awfully sad twisted ex or PWC, it;s just such a shame she is 45 and is still nearly 17 years after the split, making it her life's work to try and ruin us, she has lost not only our epect but her her self-respect also

aliasojo

PlayingHardball wrote: »

I think the whole idea of this thread is wrong. Sorry, but it is never one person that ends the relationship. if the 'relationship' was solid and 100% intact....need I say more?

I'm not sure I agree with that. Some women bend over backwards to please their partners, only to be rewarded with a slap or a punch.

Some men admit to having everything they want/need at home yet 'something' makes them want more and so they cheat.

In those kind of cases, I would argue that one person is the cause simply because of their individual personality.

I think this is an interesting question. My first thought was that the care of the child should be the only factor in the equation and two people should be jointly resonsible. However, I then thought that it's not very fair if one partner is the sole cause of the problem and subsequent split....and the other is left struggling financially because of it, (assuming the other partner has care of the children, that is).

That said, I dont think this would ever be workable in practice simply because of the variables.