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

Prudent

seven-day-weekend wrote:

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.

Many parent's with care pay far more than half. I pay for evrything for my daughter. I am a not a high earner. Her father (on over £60,000 per annum) manages to contribute nothing by systematically lying and evading the csa.

I do not resent buying things for my daughter : I love her, I undertook to have and bring up a child. Yet so did her father. Unfairness doesn't just affect the non resident parent.

wayne

jenniferpa wrote:

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.

i would rather be in debt up to my eyeballs than be without my son and daughter.i would rather have a loving hug off either of them than stare at a healthy bank balance.this is a money saving board you got that right.but it helps you to save money on things so you have more to spend on your children.you,re right children dont make fiscal sense but since when has unconditional love made any kind of sense.by the way ds is 23 and dd is 18.

EasilyAggravated

i split up with the woman indoors at the beginning of the year. im on benefits. cant work through illness. they decide to take £5 from me to give her. a fiver is a fiver i know. i told them i wanted them to !!!!!! because theyre more trouble than theyre worth. i started giving her a lot more that a fiver. we sorted out our problems and i moved back in. they still continue to pay her this fiver even though im living there. i rang last friday and was told the individual dealing with the case wasnt working so they would ring me back, im still waiting.....

the issue with the csa is not the people working there. its the system they work with. the same as child tax credits etc. a bag of utter crap

black-saturn

Lady_S wrote:

I thought it was the case that you didn't have to go to the CSA unless you were on income support.

Surely having income support isn't 'standing on your own two feet'

I realise that this post appears harsh, but I don't really understand this.

I'm not on income support. Every absent father has to pay for his children through the CSA, even if the mother is a millionaire I'm afraid.

black-saturn

seven-day-weekend wrote:

Yes, I appreciate I've no first-hand experience, and the only personal second-hand experience I have is two blokes who were ripped off by their ex-wives (apart from what I've seen posted on forums). Both are good decent guys who lost everything and then got taken to the cleaners and one even ended up having to live with us because he had no money left to do anything else.

How do you know they were decent guys? I'm not suggesting they weren't but you never know what goes on behind closed doors in a relationship. My ex was lovely to everyone else and no one would believe me telling them what he was really like when we split up. Even if you had them living with you it doesnt mean you know their true colours.

Scarlett1

Lady_S wrote:

Surely having income support isn't 'standing on your own two feet'

I realise that this post appears harsh, but I don't really understand this.

yes it is harsh, and someone is indeed standing on their own two feet when raising a child/children on their own, IS is a stepping stone until they find employment :rolleyes:

Isnt there a saying 'until you have taken a step in someone elses shoes'

Lady_S

black-saturn wrote:

I'm not on income support. Every absent father has to pay for his children through the CSA, even if the mother is a millionaire I'm afraid.

The CSA will only chase him for payment if you ask them to do so though, if you are on IS you have no choice, they will just make you do this unless you can come up with a good reason such as my ex is violent and will become more violent if you contact him.

Lady_S

Scarlett1 wrote:

yes it is harsh, and someone is indeed standing on their own two feet when raising a child/children on their own, IS is a stepping stone until they find employment :rolleyes:

Isnt there a saying 'until you have taken a step in someone elses shoes'

I just didn't understand the concept of I could stand on my own two feet, but my ex pays through the CSA. From my knowledge of the system the only way the CSA have to be involved is if you are on a benefit. If you are not on a benefit then you can choose to opt out of the system.

If I was looking at myself I wouldn't consider claiming benefits standing on my own two feet, although I appreciate that different people see it differently. I was only trying to clarify the point, not cause any offence. Therefore I aimed a question, not an accusation.

hobo28

charlotte664 wrote:

DD1 NEVER went without. We put electric/gas in their meters once a month, did a small Tesco shop once a month for them and we paid for all school outings, uniform and pocket money etc.

I've said before and I'll say it again. People generally think they are playing their part, doing the best they can.

Without wishing to cause offence or an argument, the above sentence pretty much sums up the difficulties of parenting when a couple splits up.

On the one hand, Charlotte664 says that DD1 never went without etc. but as a RP, my response to that would be "So does DD1 only use electricity or eat once a month?"

Scarlett1 wrote:

'until you have taken a step in someone elses shoes'

Completely agree. I'm ashamed to admit that I used to think that there was a lot of single parents out there who's sole purpose was to milk the system, the whole media stereotype. Once I became one myself and met others, I started to realise that most were just normal people trying to do the best they can.

seven-day-weekend

black-saturn wrote:

How do you know they were decent guys? I'm not suggesting they weren't but you never know what goes on behind closed doors in a relationship. My ex was lovely to everyone else and no one would believe me telling them what he was really like when we split up. Even if you had them living with you it doesnt mean you know their true colours.

Well.....the one who came to live with us (for eighteen months) remarried and took on two stepchildren and had another one of his own. Twenty years later his stepchildren have just paid for the council house he and their mum live in because they can't really afford the rent any longer, so they appear to think he's a nice guy.

The other man I mentioned has also remarried, he and his wife have six children between them (all grown up now) and he seems to have no problem in his second marriage and has good relationships with all the children.

I agree though about walking in someone elses shoes (I've actually quoted it on another thread), so I must be aware that I've not been there. either as a parent with the children, or a parent without, and that I've for 35 years had a husband who has always loved and supported me and our son. Not everyone is as fortunate as me, and so I suppose I'm not really going to appreciate what it's like. Thanks everyone for your input.

'There but for the grace of God go I'.