Can you help me see how this is fair

melly1980

themull1 wrote: »

Ahh, whats the matter, got SMS? or PMT?

I doubt it since lack the ovaries required for it.

Dave101t

if your planning a child with him, and he left his original partner, wont you simply be next...?

AnxiousMum

Melly you really don't read posts well do you? In a previous post I have already stated how unfair and archaic the laws are in the UK with regards to access and custody of children.
With my case for example, in Canada - all parents are automatically given joint custody of a child - and usually at that time the parents decide who the child will reside with as a permanent address - and in most cases, that is the female as that is who is the main carer in most families. If however, the dad was a stay at home dad with the kids - he would obviously be the main carer, and the obvious place for the children to reside on a permanent basis.

I know people who have it written in their divorce orders that they will not be able to move more than a certain distance away - and that's either parent - the one with the kids or the one who has the kids weekends or whatever their arrangement is. They really do encourage, through mediation (which is required prior to it going to court) parents to come to a mutual agreement which is best for the children - not best for the parent, but for the children. Parents have responsibility, children have the rights. There is a difference. A child has the right to have a relationship with both parents, but also the right to be financially supported by both parents until they are independent.

Personally I think the whole system here is in need of a major overhaul - it's a mess, it's discriminatory and it does not take the best interest of the child into account. It does however, let nrp's get away without paying their share of raising a child, and it let's pwc's withhold access between child and the nrp. Where is the fairness for a child in all of that?

It's just a matter of finding a politician with the balls to take it on, and take the risk of pis sing off a whole bunch of people who are playing a system and using a child as a pawn - both nrp and pwc!

AnxiousMum

melly1980 wrote: »

Im not worked up, Im just posting my views. Just because I dont hold back doesnt mean Im sitting here foaming at the mouth with rage. Im perfectly calm, I just dont agree with you :rotfl:

and as per my post above, Im not bitter. Not got owt to be bitter about.

So as pointed out previously, you don't read and comprehend an entire post, you pick out one little bit that sparks you into action and go with it?

anguk

AnxiousMum wrote: »

yes you are right - that is the way that it is now. Until recently, it used to be taken into account, so there were 'cash deals' being done by private arrangement - ie, nrp paying less amount than CSA would assess at, and pwc not claiming it as income - both figured they had a good deal. (Not everybody before anybody jumps down my throat.....but lots!) Once this was changed, there was a barage of posts from nrp's on here upset as their ex had now gone via CSA for the higher amount, knowing it would not affect their benefits. So, yes - they are being paid twice now - once by the nrp (hopefully) and then by the state in the form of means tested benefits (ctc, wtc, housing benefit, council tax benefit) to bring their income up to a level to provide for themselves and their children.

Thanks for explaining, as I said I know absolutely nothing about it. I would have to disagree a little with your last sentence, if maintenance is disregarded that means the state provides for the PWC and children (if the pwc is claiming), any maintenance received is extra money.

melly1980

AnxiousMum wrote: »

So as pointed out previously, you don't read and comprehend an entire post, you pick out one little bit that sparks you into action and go with it?

Alternatively, I may agree with 75% of the post and dont feel the need to respond. The 25% that I may not agree with I will reply to explaing why.

It isnt my fault that you ASSUME that Ive not read the post, just like the several other assumptions you have made about me (all of which were also false)

FBaby

Maybe if he became a househusband he could offer to care for all of his children, and the PWC could pay 20% of her income to support them

Then she can go ahead and do the same, fight for custody back and we have no working parents who rely solely on benefits just because they don't want to pay towards their kids...

Well I won't disagree with you there. The problem is that the system expects far too much from NRPs who start new families, or who have step-kids. It expects them to support their own kids who they don't live with, plus other peoples' kids who they do live with. It expects the same % of his income regardless of how many other kids he has to support.

NRP should be expected to pay for their step-children, at least not when they are struggling to contribute towards his own children. There is nothing wrong with being a SAHM when this is in agreement with the father. The moment that arrangement breaks down, BOTH parents should accept that THEY have to contribute towards their children, and the privilege of being a SAHM shouldn't be a choice any longer. My ex's partner believes that my ex should support her children, in addition to the support she is getting from her ex for her children just so that she can avoid going to work. I too wish I could be a SAHM, or at least cut down on my hours, but being in a new relationship and having my children to support means that this is not the right thing to do even if financially, by stretching it, we could do it. I accept that the moment I decided to have children, I took away a large chunk of the choices I had about how I wanted to live my life because supporting my children will always come first. The joy of being their mum makes it all up.

FBaby

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.

That comment leaves me gobsmacked! The money is not for the pwc but for the children. Most loving parents aspire to provide more to their kids when they can afford it. Each time my salary has gone up, my children have benefited directly. I am not making money just for my enjoyment but for my children's too.. Why is it that as soon as a parent become a nrp, this philosophy goes out of the window?

melly1980

FBaby wrote: »

That comment leaves me gobsmacked! The money is not for the pwc but for the children. Most loving parents aspire to provide more to their kids when they can afford it. Each time my salary has gone up, my children have benefited directly. I am not making money just for my enjoyment but for my children's too.. Why is it that as soon as a parent become a nrp, this philosophy goes out of the window?

You can be as gobsmacked as you want. It is an utter myth that all of the NRP's payments go to benefitting the kid. It is an outright lie. Some of that money will benefit the PWC in ways that doesnt benefit the child no matter how much you pretend that it doesnt.
I'd give my last penny to my kids, but wouldnt be too keen on improving the life of someone who could have been responsible for the ending of a relationship with me. If the kids need providing for then fine, tell me what needs paying for and I'll pay directly for it.

AnxiousMum

I think it would be the minority of cases where a parent just decides to 'leave the relationship' for no good reason whatsoever. Face it - if you are both treating each other the way you should in such a case, why would anybody just end it for no reason whatsoever? If your wife was to decide to leave you, I'm sure that there would be something that has caused her to do that - maybe you couldn't see it, or would refuse to see it - which is why the relationship would fail, because why would you work on changing something that you cannot see is wrong? It takes two people to make the relationship work, and being a single parent is hard work - the support you receive from a supportive spouse is worth so much more than their money - their money doesn't keep you warm at night, it doesn't help you out when a child is ill etc. I don't know that too many people would chuck in a perfecftly good relationship with the hopes that you might be compliant with CSA.