We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Son dumped on
Comments
-
Oh my god £8 a week? wouldn't even pay to heat the house for his kid/s let alone the rest to live day to day with children, shameful!0
-
moneysaymoneydo wrote: »Oh my god £8 a week? wouldn't even pay to heat the house for his kid/s let alone the rest to live day to day with children, shameful!
Did you bother to read the posts which said that he is paying 60% MORE than he would be paying if the CSA was involved?
The house will be heated irrespective of whether there is a child there, if the mother or partner are not working.0 -
I have a brother who claimed to be a student for years, he would study dead end courses then quit them. He would work at McDonalds, then quit that too. Then back into college etc. A bit unstuck now as college is no longer free.
Eventually he became an "Ex" and his partner/child moved out and on with there lives.
She now has a long term partner, and my nephew has a better father figure in his life.0 -
I wrote this -When my ex was unemployed, living with a new partner and no kids to support there (at his new home) a year or so back I was getting £5 a week from him, for two teenagers.
The mum should also be getting CB for this boy.
So yes, £8 is not a lot. But we don't know the ins and outs of her other household income.
And you wrote thisclearingout wrote: »even if the mother is a millionaire in her own right, the father has both a legal and moral responsibility to make a fair contribution towards the upbringing of his child. At the current time, assuming he is unemployed because times are hard and work is difficult to come by for everyone but he is at least out looking every day, he is making a fair contribution. But for a mother on benefits, or who is reliant on a new partner, or who is working her backside off to pay for her child, £8 a week is never going to feel 'fair'.
I am a lucky single mother. I own my own home, I earn a professional wage, albeit at the bottom end of the scale. Tax credits help out. I am able to make my money stretch and we do OK. Not a great life, but it could be far worse. By your 'rules', that we are doing OK means that my ex shouldn't contribute towards the upbringing of his children?
Now my post (requoted for clarity) was in response to the people saying the father being talked about in this thread is not paying a 'fair' amount.
My post was intended to illustrate (what other posters have said) that the father in this case is actually paying more than he is legally obliged to; in any case what he is paying is being deducted from his own benefit. But I haven't cited any 'rules' at all. At NO point have I suggested that this father doesn't need to pay to support his own son! So I'm not sure what point you're making.
Of course £8 won't feel fair to her, anymore than £5 felt fair to me. But £8 isn't 'all' she gets for her son; she is, we can presume, receiving Child Benefit - this alone takes her income in respect of her son to almost £30 per week. And as I said, we don't know what other income/benefits she receives.
Please don't twist my words.Don't put it DOWN; put it AWAY"I would like more sisters, that the taking out of one, might not leave such stillness" Emily DickinsonJanice 1964-2016
Thank you Honey Bear0 -
clearingout wrote: »how is he claiming JSA if he is a student?
Maybe he is going to see if there's a law clinic there?
It has been suggested, as he cannot get legal aid, that he could see if there are any students doing Pro Bono work;)Don't put it DOWN; put it AWAY"I would like more sisters, that the taking out of one, might not leave such stillness" Emily DickinsonJanice 1964-2016
Thank you Honey Bear0 -
PoppingCandy wrote: »Why isn't your son working? I don't mean to sound unkind but surely he can't expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab for his legal bill.
When ordinary people cannot get difficult issues resolved by taking them to law, then law becomes the instrument of the rich to oppress the poor.
Ultimately if people cannot get justice from the state, they will rise up and take it for themselves. And it will be a justice bearing the smell of burning buildings and the stain of spilled blood.
Legal Aid is an investment in giving everyone a stake in society and an attempt to establish that the poor have rights which will be upheld equally with the rights of the rich. Of course the taxpayer should pay legal bills for this kind of situation - unless the taxpayer is not that bothered about the whole idea of the state.You might as well ask the Wizard of Oz to give you a big number as pay a Credit Referencing Agency for a so-called 'credit-score'0 -
The 9 months my XH was claiming JSA after being made redundant (while also working cash in hand for his friend) CSA took the sum total of £20 for 6 children.. about 50p a week!!!.. he hasn't paid a bean since restarting work in April!! £8 seems a reasonable amount given the measly payment the OP's son will be getting on JSA and the fact he buys other stuff such as clothes and pullups/nappies for the child too which his mother will be getting money to provide. Saving for his sons future out of that money too does make me question how much debt he is getting himself into!
I love the way men are always in the wrong automatically. His ex might really be a prize b!tch. Give the poor chap the benefit of the doubt .. as a mum whose son has been in a similar position.. it is a very hard place to be, to have to stand by and watch your son sob his heart out over his son he is scared he might never see again... in our case the son was at the nursery behind my house and we could hear him playing and DS1 would stand and watch him playing from my back bedroom window.LB moment 10/06 Debt Free date 6/6/14Hope to be debt free until the day I dieMortgage-free Wannabee (05/08/30)6/6/14 £72,454.65 (5.65% int.)08/12/2023 £33602.00 (4.81% int.)0 -
Maybe he is going to see if there's a law clinic there?
It has been suggested, as he cannot get legal aid, that he could see if there are any students doing Pro Bono work;)
law students are exactly that...students. They're not qualified to give legal advice, let alone partake in pro bono work. Do I bang my head against a well now or later?!!! :rotfl:0 -
I wrote this -
And you wrote this
Now my post (requoted for clarity) was in response to the people saying the father being talked about in this thread is not paying a 'fair' amount.
My post was intended to illustrate (what other posters have said) that the father in this case is actually paying more than he is legally obliged to; in any case what he is paying is being deducted from his own benefit. But I haven't cited any 'rules' at all. At NO point have I suggested that this father doesn't need to pay to support his own son! So I'm not sure what point you're making.
Of course £8 won't feel fair to her, anymore than £5 felt fair to me. But £8 isn't 'all' she gets for her son; she is, we can presume, receiving Child Benefit - this alone takes her income in respect of her son to almost £30 per week. And as I said, we don't know what other income/benefits she receives.
Please don't twist my words.
to be fair, you wrote 'we do not know the ins and outs of her household income'. This screams at me (rightly or wrongly) that it is somehow OK not to pay maintenance/pay low maintenance if the other parent has a decent household income.
If I read it wrong, I read it wrong! But it remains a point of frustration to me - and one we see often when a 'new' family is involved and becomes 'she has more money than us so why should he pay maintenance?'.0 -
You are taking this off-topic, but I think it deserves an answer.
When ordinary people cannot get difficult issues resolved by taking them to law, then law becomes the instrument of the rich to oppress the poor.
Ultimately if people cannot get justice from the state, they will rise up and take it for themselves. And it will be a justice bearing the smell of burning buildings and the stain of spilled blood.
Legal Aid is an investment in giving everyone a stake in society and an attempt to establish that the poor have rights which will be upheld equally with the rights of the rich. Of course the taxpayer should pay legal bills for this kind of situation - unless the taxpayer is not that bothered about the whole idea of the state.
Excellent post.
Legal Aid; when it was introduced, was intended to give those without the means to pay access to the legal sytem and remedy in Law.
And now those of us who cannot afford it do not have that access. As an example, there are threads a-plenty about those (highly paid) solicitors and barristers who can get lawbreakers (motoring offences spring to mind) off on technicalities. But boy do they charge.Don't put it DOWN; put it AWAY"I would like more sisters, that the taking out of one, might not leave such stillness" Emily DickinsonJanice 1964-2016
Thank you Honey Bear0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards