Should blame be part of the equation

skibadee

aliasojo wrote: »

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.

No it is something that could never happen......no one person would ever accept blame.
Maintenance will and always should be payable for children.
v

I would like to add though that some WOMEN claim to have everything and still find the need to cheat because of their individual personality too.....then they take the children to live with their new partner and make their ex's [ the NRP ] life hell by making unreasonable demands .......and these demands are not in the interest of the children.

aliasojo

skibadee wrote: »

I would like to add though that some WOMEN claim to have everything and still find the need to cheat because of their individual personality too.....then they take the children to live with their new partner and make their ex's [ the NRP ] life hell by making unreasonable demands .......and these demands are not in the interest of the children.

Of course you are right. I erred in my post by not making it clear it can work both ways.

I only used the examples I did, because I know the people who were in these situations and that's what came to mind.

Certainly men can end up having just as rough a deal sometimes.

Blob

There are both sides to this discusion!

Getting in to a marrage should be made difficult as this would then cut down on the number of break ups, then the other end getting out should be made eiser.

As for paying, this should be taken out of the way that it is done now in my opinion. There can be a % of the income, but this should be caped, as if a person can live on wha teh Gov say and set in IS and the like, then a child should be able to as well.

As for putting the blaim for the breakdown, not even going to get to go, if the relationship is dead, it is so move on.

Most of the probs are caused by the PWC seeing that they can possibly get more from teh ex, they may have had their pride and feelings trampled on so human nature being what it is they will then turn on the person that they deem to be responsible for the situation that they now find themselvs in. The other side of the coin is that the NRP has to try to rebuild thier life and if the Gov is taking up to 40% of thier income see no point in strugling to make it, so they then dig thier heels in and say to 'Hell' with it, so it then goes pare shaped big time!

stressed_eric_4

to quote the previous reply

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

in my case it was my ex (female!!) who wanted more and thought the grass was greener on the other side, she used to go out all the time and i stayed at home looking after the children. i did all the hours going at work as she always wanted what others had and nothing was ever good enough, i didn't want to break up but she thought she would be better off (and in fact due to csa and the new rules re ctc/hb etc she probably is financially better off!!) so please bear in mind that it's not always the men it's the women too

Soubrette

bdt1 wrote: »

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

If Blonde Bint had her way then your poor OH would still be married to her :eek:

Lots of people feel that they were the innocent parties in a marriage breakdown as they were the ones that were left/kicked out etc.

A small proportion of these would be right - a far larger proportion would have some horrible and uncomfortable home truths spelled out as to what kind of partner they were to help cause the break down via acrimonious solicitor letters - after all a third party would have the job of deciding blame

I personally don't believe the children should be the ones that are disadvantaged because one or both parents couldn't or wouldn't make their marriage work. It seems a similar situation to me as when a PWC says - I don't like or trust the NRP therefore they are not likeable or trustworthy and therefore don't deserve to see the children.

Sou

Blonde_Bint

Soubrette wrote: »

If Blonde Bint had her way then your poor OH would still be married to her :eek:
Sou

lol. eh

i've only been married once, w'sat all about up there a little explication for ol dopey drawers would be handy thanks Soubrette.

ALIBOBSY

I think there is an arguement that if children are involved a divorce should be harder to get (unless abuse is involved). Like it or not numerous studies have shown that kids are happier and better adjusted when parents stay together even if the house is full of arguments and falling outs.
How about compulsary marriage councilling for those with children. Even if all it did was enable people to come to a point where they could deal with each other reasonable for the sake of the kids after the marriage ended.
I wonder how many issues between PWC and NRP stem from anger over some part of the breakup?

ali x

TotallyBroke

It's a weird thing really the whole 15% deduction. Where does that figure come from. I'm a single Mum and can say that I do not put 15% of my wages aside each month for my son. I've just looked at the CSA website and put in the details as if my DS was not living with me. They would want me to pay £47 per week!!!!! I certainly do not spend that on him each week apart unless I factor in childcare costs whic I have to have because I work.
Also why if a child has a rich father should they get more than a child with a poorer father?

Gorgeous_George

ALIBOBSY wrote: »

I think there is an arguement that if children are involved a divorce should be harder to get (unless abuse is involved). Like it or not numerous studies have shown that kids are happier and better adjusted when parents stay together even if the house is full of arguments and falling outs.

... and this would prepare them for life better. It isn't always about been fluffy and warm - conflict exists and a good old argument is real life.

Instead we teach our kids that if there's a problem, run away and the state and that mug that fathered you will pay to make it ok.

I agree that there are two sides to every story but what if...

Dad works hard but low wages means he needs lots of overtime. Wife has affair with her brother-in-law. You find out and get diovorced. She keeps the kids and the house so you have to buy another one that is big enough for your kids to visit. You pay 15% and she restricts accesss to 51 days per year so as to maximise the payments. She lives happily ever after with her brother in law.

I know somebody in that situation.

At least in my case it wasn't her brother-in-law!

Oh. and it was some other mug that she married - God bless him.



GG

Blob

Moral is; God bless the mugs of this world!