Cant afford mortgage payments, but if i sell i will be intentionlly homeless!

chris1973

but the childs father should be supporting keeping a roof over babies head (plus all other associated costs of raising a child!!!)..

I'll rephrase that for you as in your eagerness to post you seem to have forgotten basic biological facts.

I think you intended to say the childs father should be jointly contributing towards the costs of keeping a roof over babies head (plus a joint share of all other associated costs of raising a child!!!)

How that paragraph was phrased appears to, suggest you believe he is in someway wholly responsible for keeping Mummy in her home and footing 100% of the costs!. The last time I checked, it took two people to have a baby, whilst it may be different in cloud cuckoo land, down here on earth its still factual.

Now I assume that the OP is of sound mind and therefore, made the decision to have a relationship with the Father, also made the informed, and highly important life changing decision to have a baby with him, and so also its fair to say that as a result, both parties are 50% responsible for the financial effects of making any wrong choices associated with that decision making process.

The partnership of a relationship may be over, but the partnership of raising the child jointly is only just getting underway

In other words, yes you are quite correct Daddy is ethically and legally responsible for jointly funding the costs towards raising his child but not all of them, Mummy should be paying her share too!.

Having a baby does not 'gift' or secure anybody free board and lodgings, and independant personal financial security for the next 18 years at the sole expense of the Father, it (quite rightly) comes as a joint effort in securing the child an equal contribution from him, but not 100% of all the costs and responsiblities!.

I suspect stepping out from the group hugging and cotton wool wrapping of this forum, and getting a dose of reality is proving a real challenge to "some" or will do eventually.

NotSuchASmugMarriedNow

Actually chris, I don't think the OP wants any of the fathers money - it was other posters who said the father should be contributing.

FBaby

chris1973 wrote: »

I'll rephrase that for you as in your eagerness to post you seem to have forgotten basic biological facts.

I think you intended to say the childs father should be jointly contributing towards the costs of keeping a roof over babies head (plus a joint share of all other associated costs of raising a child!!!)

How that paragraph was phrased appears to, suggest you believe he is in someway wholly responsible for keeping Mummy in her home and footing 100% of the costs!. The last time I checked, it took two people to have a baby, whilst it may be different in cloud cuckoo land, down here on earth its still factual.

Now I assume that the OP is of sound mind and therefore, made the decision to have a relationship with the Father, also made the informed, and highly important life changing decision to have a baby with him, and so also its fair to say that as a result, both parties are 50% responsible for the financial effects of making any wrong choices associated with that decision making process.

The partnership of a relationship may be over, but the partnership of raising the child jointly is only just getting underway

In other words, yes you are quite correct Daddy is ethically and legally responsible for jointly funding the costs towards raising his child but not all of them, Mummy should be paying her share too!.

Having a baby does not 'gift' or secure anybody free board and lodgings, and independant personal financial security for the next 18 years at the sole expense of the Father, it (quite rightly) comes as a joint effort in securing the child an equal contribution from him, but not 100% of all the costs and responsiblities!.

I suspect stepping out from the group hugging and cotton wool wrapping of this forum, and getting a dose of reality is proving a real challenge to "some" or will do eventually.

This post may not have its best place here, but is very well written and very refreshing.

I am a pwc and am the main financial support to my children, their father having either not paid or contributed in a very limited way, certainly not ever close to 50% of their costs. I do find it amazing to read how biased comments often are towards nrps not contributing, but rarely towards the numerous pwcs who rely on tax payers for their part of the contribution.

I do not understand why pwcs are not made to go on JSA from the time their kids are 1. That doesn't mean they are forced to work hours they can't do, but are forced to at least look for a job that they can carry out within their -genuine- restrictions with childcare. Why is it accepted that they can be free of looking for work, often racking more in benefits than many earn working, then getting to keep 100% of maintenance from the npr, hence having him and the state supporting her children with her having no financial liability. I am really am aghast at the reasoning behind it....

mynameistallulah

epitome wrote: »

I accept that but it is extremely unlikely not to be introduced IMHO. And it won't be retrospectively applied so notsuchasmugmarriednow ....you can relax.

It was one of several options - why are you sure that is the one they will introduce?

MissMoneypenny

angel1985 wrote: »

They work it out at a rate of 3.63% up to 200,000 ( if anyone wanted to know) and i should be able to change to interest only with my mortgage lender (hopefully!!) so i should .

Don't forget that the 200k limit is only a temporary raise until January 2013.

SMI use to have a limit of 100k and from 39 weeks, but in 2009 there was a temporary raise to 200k from 13 weeks for a fixed time limit. That limit has been extended until 2013, but you can't rely on that being extended again.

The other big problen may be getting your lender to agree to an interst only mortgage as lenders are now required to be more responsible with their lending. If you don't have a job or a repayment vehicle to repay your mortgage and have a very low LTV (loan to value), they may not agree to interest only.

MissMoneypenny

NotSuchASmugMarriedNow wrote: »

[/B]

Umm, this is new and rather worrying information. Can I ask where you acquired these details? Was it from a reliable source?

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:7VAox7LZBHYJ:www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/support-for-mortgage-interest-call-for-evidence.pdf+cahrge+to+property+of+support+for+mortgage+interest&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjYpHfIfwfpahyUbEc8QB06SfeESqavUQj-IVWULk9I-3T8EyM3b_dLS0QiBou6SaLKgp0KRJKP4dUiKGqacIUrjJsO5pDov2tkBaVwTmv7-d8_gSFqm-l-OEGEw1ZVLTpoFYWI&sig=AHIEtbRi8jFzGmCBYZXTzmk6GCEfoILpiA

ticktack_2

chris1973 wrote: »

The partnership of a relationship may be over, but the partnership of raising the child jointly is only just getting underway

According to the OP (post #10):

angel1985 wrote: »

He pays nothing and never has.. I havent seen him for over a year.. And have no idea where he is either...

There seems no danger of this particular father making excessive contributions to his child's support.

SuziQ

I have thought the same, as my mortgage is £400 a month and renting is £1,100 around here for a much smaller property. They are not going to help you pay for your house though, that's what it boils down to. I live near London and everything is so expensive here.

BigAunty

FBaby wrote: »

..

I do not understand why pwcs are not made to go on JSA from the time their kids are 1. That doesn't mean they are forced to work hours they can't do, but are forced to at least look for a job that they can carry out within their -genuine- restrictions with childcare. Why is it accepted that they can be free of looking for work, often racking more in benefits than many earn working, then getting to keep 100% of maintenance from the npr, hence having him and the state supporting her children with her having no financial liability. I am really am aghast at the reasoning behind it....

There are some US states that have time limited JSA (2 years across a person's entire working life, I think?) and which demand that lone parents with young children go back to work when their child reaches 3. I believe researchers found that the harsher conditionality it made no difference to the rate of childbirth out of wedlock at all. Therefore we can assume that it would be the case in the UK, too.

HappyMJ

BigAunty wrote: »

There are some US states that have time limited JSA (2 years across a person's entire working life, I think?) and which demand that lone parents with young children go back to work when their child reaches 3. I believe researchers found that the harsher conditionality it made no difference to the rate of childbirth out of wedlock at all. Therefore we can assume that it would be the case in the UK, too.

That's similar to the contributions based benefits we have here. They do have hardship payments available to everyone else which pays in the form of food stamps and housing costs.