Can you help me see how this is fair

AnxiousMum

melly1980 wrote: »

The very fact that if the NRP suddenly gets a nice pay rise he has to pay more. Has the kid suddenly costed more? Nope. Because its not about that. Its about raping the bloke for as much as humanly possible rather than working out proportionate responsibility.

When most people have children, they have not reached the peak in their salary. We all realise that when we start out as a couple aged 20 something, and go on to have children, that as we progress in our career, we will also progress on the salary scale, meaning that as the first child arrives, we struggle along to meet all the financial obligations, and then we have another, and we struggle along. 5, 10, 15 years down the road, in general, most people are earning a better salary - helping to meet the growing needs of children as they grow older, helping to put away some extra for education, payment of a wedding - whatever! So yes, as an NRP's salary increases, they should be reassessed.

How would you feel if I as a PWC, were to suggest that all PWC's should start out paying a total of £200 per month towards the upkeep of their children, but as they grew older, required own bedrooms (ie a son and a daughter, can share for the first few years surely, but not as teenagers) so had to pay more for housing (as an example of changing costs as they get older) I refused to spend any more money on them to meet their growing needs. Would you see that as 'fair'? Or, as my income increases throughout my career, just as the NRP's does, would you assume that I would be able to provide for my children better in accordance to my salary (AND.....along with the child support from the NRP).

SingleSue

melly1980 wrote: »

But we were talking about the systems in place for determining these things, not mutual agreements.



Lets cut to the chase here. The only way that the woman does not end up with the kids is if either

a) she doesnt want them

b) She is a drug user

or

c) Her best friend is Ian Huntley.

Other than that she is going to get them even though we all p1$$ about and pretend we live in an age of equality.

What systems? I have a private agreement and it was mutually worked out on what was affordable for him to be able to live.

And not all men want custody or even access to their children, hard to believe for those of us who really cannot see why but it is true (my ex husband is one of them), blimey, we didn't even have to go to court to agree who would have the children because he really could not be bothered, he just left me to it!

melly1980

SingleSue wrote: »

What systems? I have a private agreement and it was mutually worked out on what was affordable for him to be able to live.

And not all men want custody or even access to their children, hard to believe for those of us who really cannot see why but it is true (my ex husband is one of them), blimey, we didn't even have to go to court to agree who would have the children because he really could not be bothered, he just left me to it!

As nice of a story that is unless Im very much mistaken this thread is not about you. It was created by someone else about the unfairness in the system. So yeah, Im very much entightled to talk about the system and my comments are valid. Just because you have been able to resolve something without using the assessment systems by the CSA does not mean that they are fair.

SingleSue

True, it is not about me but some balance was needed and my story gives a little bit of that balance.

I.E not all PWC's are money grabbing and not all NRP's fight to see their children.

melly1980

SingleSue wrote: »

True, it is not about me but some balance was needed and my story gives a little bit of that balance.

I.E not all PWC's are money grabbing and not all NRP's fight to see their children.

Im not saying that either of those are true, they clearly arent. But I do know 2 things are for sure.

1) If the woman wants the kids she will get the kids unless there is something seriously wrong with her. As a bloke you stand next to no chance at all even if you do want custody.

2) If the woman chooses to get the "system" involved then the bloke will get screwed over. It isnt designed to pay what is required to bring up a child. It is designed to get every penny possible out of the people that they can contact.

I'd hazard a guess that you wouldnt see people suffering the indignity of dressing up as Batman and climbing up Big Ben unless there was soething really p***ing them off about the way they are treated.

eyeinthesky

Why don't we all take responsibility for ourselves and our offspring, and only have children when WE can afford to, without relying on the benefits to pay for everything? When people move on to a new relationship, they should consider if they can afford more children, or afford to pay for the existing children of the new partner. If the answer is no, then they should walk on!

melly1980

AnxiousMum wrote: »

When most people have children, they have not reached the peak in their salary. We all realise that when we start out as a couple aged 20 something, and go on to have children, that as we progress in our career, we will also progress on the salary scale, meaning that as the first child arrives, we struggle along to meet all the financial obligations, and then we have another, and we struggle along. 5, 10, 15 years down the road, in general, most people are earning a better salary - helping to meet the growing needs of children as they grow older, helping to put away some extra for education, payment of a wedding - whatever! So yes, as an NRP's salary increases, they should be reassessed.

It depends on the situation at hand.

If the wife had CHOSEN to leave her husband or got jibbed off for screwing around or the split happened for any other reason that is driven by her then !!!!!! should the guy pay more if he improves his life after the event. She chose to forfeit that money the day that she chose to move on. Its completely hard faced to say "aye, I dont want you but give us a cut of your extra money". Its completely about extra money not about extra provision for the kid.

Also, as you have described above the peak in salary theory should happen for both of them thus she should have no problem whatsoever in providing more as time progresses. Or does it only work one way?

melly1980

eyeinthesky wrote: »

Why don't we all take responsibility for ourselves and our offspring, and only have children when WE can afford to, without relying on the benefits to pay for everything? When people move on to a new relationship, they should consider if they can afford more children, or afford to pay for the existing children of the new partner. If the answer is no, then they should walk on!

As Ive said several times through this thread, if you want to use that argument then why should I pay taxes towards things that YOU use.

Not all people kids that are born are deliberate chosen acts.

AnxiousMum

melly1980 wrote: »

It depends on the situation at hand.

If the wife had CHOSEN to leave her husband or got jibbed off for screwing around or the split happened for any other reason that is driven by her then !!!!!! should the guy pay more if he improves his life after the event. She chose to forfeit that money the day that she chose to move on. Its completely hard faced to say "aye, I dont want you but give us a cut of your extra money". Its completely about extra money not about extra provision for the kid.

Also, as you have described above the peak in salary theory should happen for both of them thus she should have no problem whatsoever in providing more as time progresses. Or does it only work one way?

Of course it works both ways! or should....

If you read my post, I give my reasons why yes, a NRP's increases in salary should be taken into account, and then I ask you what you would think to a scenario where the PwC refused to use her increases to provide for the children.

Sorry - but the moment a couple decide to have a child together, the financial responsibility is there for BOTH OF THEM for a long time. So what who ended the relationship - are you saying a child should pay for the error of a parent, or, in reality - both parents, as very few partners are absolutely blameless in any breakup.

AnxiousMum

melly1980 wrote: »

Im not saying that either of those are true, they clearly arent. But I do know 2 things are for sure.

1) If the woman wants the kids she will get the kids unless there is something seriously wrong with her. As a bloke you stand next to no chance at all even if you do want custody.

2) If the woman chooses to get the "system" involved then the bloke will get screwed over. It isnt designed to pay what is required to bring up a child. It is designed to get every penny possible out of the people that they can contact.

I'd hazard a guess that you wouldnt see people suffering the indignity of dressing up as Batman and climbing up Big Ben unless there was soething really p***ing them off about the way they are treated.

LOL - dressing as Batman and climbing up Big Ben doesn't exactly scream 'I'm a sane person' to me - but hey ho.

Custody and access are two more issues that in this country are sooooooooooo archaeic! Most other civilised countries prefer to award joint custody to both parents, and they do enforce access. In some countries, if one parent doesn't abide by the access arrangements, then kidnapping charges can be brought against that parent.