OK, is it me? ......

looby75

When my (soon-to-be ex) Husband left me I had to go on benefits, and I filled all the paperwork in so that the CSA could get maintenance from him. 6 months down the line they still hadn't contacted him so I actually pushed the DSS to get on to him (I couldn't do it myself as I was on IS) I didn't see why he should get away from paying for HIS kids, I was getting IS and CTC to look after his kids so it was only fair that he should pay back into the system. He was on a good job earning 35K + a year (after overtime) so it's not like he was stony broke.

When he found out what I had done he went mad, called me a money grabbing b!tch etc. He just didn't (and still doesn't) understand why he still has responsibility for these kids even though he walked out. As I told him, he can walk out of the marriage but he can never walk out of the responsibility for his kids.

skylight

There are so many different stories - never one group to blame (ie all mothers are money grabbers or all fathers are losers) and we all have our own experiences.

But what some parents in these arguments seem to forget, is that ultimately it is ONLY the children who get hurt.

Lady_S

Yup I would agree with that completely. It is awful to see the children suffering. From our situation, but there is very little you can do other than be as reliable as you can and hope that in time they will understand the limitations which were put on us.

shykins

i understand the OP's comments but its not the whole story either

i have never stopped my ex seeing our son and he has NEVER paid me a penny in maintenance despite a new van, car and house etc... the CSA seem powerless to do anything about it and quite frankly i wonder whether its worth me putting anymore time into chasing them about it

i think its wrong to stop fathers seeing their children as blackmail to make them pay as the child is the one that suffers but its also wrong to not pay for a child that is yr responsibility

there are as many selfish fathers who dont pay as do but this should be a separate issue to that of visitation

seven-day-weekend

Prudent wrote:

I do not understand the point you are making about more than half. For one child the csa asks for 15%, for two children it is 20% and for three children or more it is 25%. At no point do they take half. Even if arrears are owing they only take an extra 2 - 5%.

I mean pay half towards their childrens' upkeep....this may indeed br 25% of their wages.

But the parent with care should pay half too.

jenniferpa

wayne wrote:

so basically what you are saying is that children should be treated as an object yeh?you get divorced meet someone else but before you do anything else you have to sit down and work out if you can afford to get this new love pregnant.if people sat down and worked out how much it costs to bring up a child noone would have children.

And would that be such a bad thing? All other things being equal? Why shouldn't people be expected to be fiscally responsible for their own children? I'm not saying that most people work out to the penny the cost of raising a child, or even that it's the norm. However, lets be realistic - children are not cheap. People spend more time working out how to afford a mortgage than how to pay for their children's upbringing - does that make any fiscal sense? Let's not forget this is a Money Saving Board.

chugalug

The parent with care does pay - they have to have a property big enough for a family and have to run it. They have to work round the children's school hours so they can be there, and they aren't free to go out whenever they like!

I'm a parent with care with 2 ex husbands. In both cases I've had problems maintaining access and getting any maintenance - does that mean I'm just unlucky?? With my first husband, he didnt pay a penny for 8 years until I got the CSA involved. Even then it took another 2 years and he still owes thousands in arrears. But, I always encouraged contact and tried to keep some sort of relationship going for the sake of the children. He dropped them completely though when he had a second family.

My second ex was different in a way. He's always paid some maintenance but uses it as an excuse for appalling behaviour. If he takes our son out I pay 'cos he's already paid me'. He's taken him camping twice and both times I got no money those weeks. He's on £20000 (not a massive amount) but I'm a student and every penny does help. He's now told me that when I finish Uni in a year he won't be paying any more money cos I'll be on a good salary and can afford to pay for everything myself.

!!!!!!!!!!!!! Maintenance is a contribution towards the upkeep of your children not a payment to the parent with care. Why does responsibility end when a half decent income comes into play?? I just don't understand! Our son's only 11 so I'm already gearing up for another battle with the CSA. I wanted to avoid them at all costs but if my ex doesnt relent I'll have to contact them again. Joy!

Lady_S

chugalug wrote:

The parent with care does pay - they have to have a property big enough for a family and have to run it. They have to work round the children's school hours so they can be there, and they aren't free to go out whenever they like!

I am glad someone has brought this up, because I don't really understand this arguement.

Surely if your partner is having access then you have time to yourself, and at the end of the day when you have children you accept that you are basically giving your social life up in alot of respects.

I know my OH would prefer to see his children every day and have no social life than to live as he does.

chugalug

True but it's so much more difficult if you're a single parent. If there's 2 of you then you can co-ordinate work, going out etc.

I would love my ex to see his child every day - at the moment its most Sundays between 10-4 except when he has to play golf!!

My argument is that the PWC has to consider their responsibilities first and fit their lives around them - the absent parent doesn't. Of course I don't resent the time I give, I just wish his father was more committed!

seven-day-weekend

chugalug wrote:

The parent with care does pay - they have to have a property big enough for a family and have to run it. They have to work round the children's school hours so they can be there, and they aren't free to go out whenever they like!

!

But quite often the other person has given up all rights to the marital home so it's still unequal.

I'm sorry you've had such bad experiences.....I still find it hard to believe that all 'absent' parents are that way through choice or as miserly and uncaring as I'm led to believe through reading these boards. They love their children as well, surely?

Maybe I only hear about the people ion bitter break-ups.