Child Maintenence

arthur_dent_2

In my opinion the level of payments should not only be determined by the duty of care and ability to pay, but also upon the amount of time spent with the child. If the mother and father have the child/children for equal amounts of time why should either parent pay maintenance. Absent fathers or mothers obviously have a duty to pay for their offspring but it is a joint responsibility with the resident parent. Women (or men) cannot expect a father to cough up every single penny it costs to keep a child, as the mother should contribute half the costs. Also if the mother chooses to live a better lifestyle than is the norm there is no reason why the father should fund this.

Women have become in some cases (not all) very greedy and believe that the partner owes them a living aswell as the care and upbringing of the child.

As for moving a child out of the country, I personally believe this is unnacceptable and if the mother wants the money then the father deserves the right to be able to see the child. It has been discussed as to whether the care of a child and the right to see that child should be seperated as issues or not. I don't believe they should be because if you deny the rights of a father to access then you are effectively saying he does not have the right to be a father and should therefore have no reason to pay.

If a mother wants the money and the father wants access then that is fair enough, if the mother wishes the father to play no part in the childs care then they should not recieve any oney. This is of course not the case if the father is merely shunning his responsability. If the father chooses not to have contact when it is being offered, he should of course continue to pay.

arthur_dent_2

Yes that is what I was trying to say Katie baby, well put.

mishmash

Hi

I was not saying that fahters do not have the right to have other children, maybe I was a little too general in my post. I was using the examaple to try and see if people could see things from the other side of the fence.

If your partners ex, had another child and you were contacted to pay more towards the child they had together, as she now had another child would that be okay? In my veiw this is the same as you and your partner having another child and reducing the maintenance to the first child.

How would you feel if you and your partner split up, he met somone else, had children with them and then your children were not sufficiantly supported leaving you to struggle. Would you still feel he had the right to go on to father as many children as he wished even if that meant he could not support the children he already had?

I am always amused when people say how it is their right to do this or that, especially when it is about having children. With rights comes responsability, it is not my place or anybody else's to say if someone should have children. It is my opinion though, that if the only way you can afford further children is by reducing the money to the children you already have, My veiw is that this would not be the right thing to do.

Only my opinion, rant all you like.

Mish

Kimberley

If you can afford to have other children and still pay financially for the children you already have then thats fine, but if you can't and the money has to be dropped then that child loses out. If you can't afford them you shouldn't have them and to have more children when your struggling to pay for the child already here then thats not on.

I wish i had been more sensible with my three, i wish i had stuck to one child when i was financially better off, but no i had two more children because i was on benefits and received enough money, i wouldn't be without all my kids now, but i really do wish i had stuck with one, i wouldn't be in the mess i'm in now, although i'm working part time i'm better off then on benefits.

Some fathers though keep on having kids after kid after kid, i'm talking about a minority. Those fathers who go into new relationships and have another child or two should really only do so if they can continue supporting their first child/ren, but by reducing your payments your taking money from your child.

I'm not saying fathers shouldn't have more kids with a different partner, i'm saying that it's wrong if this results in the support you give to your child has to drop because of it.

There are mothers out there who don't get child maintenance at all, they have tried getting it but the absent fathers don't want to know, but i bet you they have had other children.

Katie~baby

mishmash wrote: »

Hi

I was not saying that fahters do not have the right to have other children, maybe I was a little too general in my post. I was using the examaple to try and see if people could see things from the other side of the fence.

If your partners ex, had another child and you were contacted to pay more towards the child they had together, as she now had another child would that be okay? In my veiw this is the same as you and your partner having another child and reducing the maintenance to the first child.

How would you feel if you and your partner split up, he met somone else, had children with them and then your children were not sufficiantly supported leaving you to struggle. Would you still feel he had the right to go on to father as many children as he wished even if that meant he could not support the children he already had?

I am always amused when people say how it is their right to do this or that, especially when it is about having children. With rights comes responsability, it is not my place or anybody else's to say if someone should have children. It is my opinion though, that if the only way you can afford further children is by reducing the money to the children you already have, My veiw is that this would not be the right thing to do.

Only my opinion, rant all you like.

Mish

The money will be dropped not the love care and attnetion she gets!! Would we ever see her without! NO way! We pay a fair whack each month and by having another baby and getting a reduction does not affect it greatly.

We pay more each week than what the mother does, if she matched what we paid then the child would be living more than comfortably! Of course the money will be reduced to the child i have at home as well, will this affect her! NO! She will be fed and clothed just as well as the first child and just as well as she has always been.

Its just the same as if you have no step children and you have more than one child, of course when you have the one child you spend everything on them then when you have more they obvouisly dont get as much.. Does this mean everyone should have just one child?

We would NEVER see the first child struggle, i dont know where ive sid that we would! The first child gets more money each month that what our child at home does so if the money is reduced she will be like the child we already have and shes not suffering!

We also dont claim any benefits, well apart from the usual wtc and ct, we have NEVER claimed Income Support and have never claimed jobseekers, my partner works hard and im a bloody good mother. We would like another child!Thats our choice! We would never see any child without!

If my partner left me and went on to have momre children and didnt pay any csa i would expect him to contribute towards things, but as long as my child was happy and loved by both parents then that would suit me fine! I dont agree that children need masses of money. My dd and step daughter are well loved happy little girls who adore each other, we wouldnt have it any other way!

Kimberley

Katie~baby wrote: »

If my partner left me and went on to have momre children and didnt pay any csa i would expect him to contribute towards things, but as long as my child was happy and loved by both parents then that would suit me fine! I dont agree that children need masses of money. My dd and step daughter are well loved happy little girls who adore each other, we wouldnt have it any other way!

So if you were financially in trouble and you were finding it hard to put bread on the table for your child, you would have the same view right?

Loads of mothers are struggling to get money via the CSA from absent fathers, what do you say to those mums whos ex's go on to have more kids?

arthur_dent_2

If the father is refusing to pay and is not being responsible for his child it is a very different set of circumstances to the father who is doing his best for all his family. Of course it would not be morally right to go on and father more children if you were not being in anyway responsible for those you already have.

Kimberley

arthur_dent wrote: »

If the father is refusing to pay and is not being responsible for his child it is a very different set of circumstances to the father who is doing his best for all his family. Of course it would not be morally right to go on and father more children if you were not being in anyway responsible for those you already have.

Obviously but if a father cannot afford to pay the maintenance set by the CSA just because he's had another child then he's taking money from that first child.

poppyscorner

And that is the problem in a nut shell some fathers a minority dont pay and therefore all absent fathers are scum who don't want to accept responsibility.

It is so black and white that whole statement.

My hubby has an ex wife and with her they had a 7 yr old daughter he had no say in the conception of the daughter wife was on the pill (so she said she had in fact not took the pill for a year and got pregnant) he stood by her and his daughter (who I would like to point out he dotes on) eventually the relationship broke down when the daughter was a year old he left initially he paid £60 per week maintainance out of a £720pm wage what the CSA said the ex was entitled to it was a joke he couldn't afford that but was forced to pay it I don't care who tries to say it no one year old child costs £60 a week to keep.
We have gone on to have two boys and her maintainance is no longer £60 a week it is nowhere near that do I think his daughter misses out no never she wants for nothing btw maintainance is no longer through CSA but a private arrangement through themselves.
So was he wrong to have our boys with me no he damn well was not their big sister loves them and they love her we adore her she plays a big part in our family life we buy her clothing shoes school uniforms take her out places she needs nothing and hubby and me would never see her without a thing.
In the beginning his maintainance was calculated on that of a single bloke so to anyone who thinks that on the birth of another child you shouldn't reduce maintainance then do you expect absent fathers to stay single and never have another child because imho THAT is wrong my hubby is a great father we have two wonderful sons who would never have existed if we lived by those ridiculous rules of yours we have taken nothing away from his daughter as I said she wants for nothing and has lots of people to love her and imo that is most important.
So if you have a child by an ex then you have another do you spend the same amount on first child as you did before I doubt it.
I have two kids both to my hubby and can honestly say I don't spend as much on older one as I did before ds2 birth.
Sorry but in my opinion you are talkin rubbish
Oh and one more thing like Katiebaby I fully intend to have another child.

Poppy

poppyscorner

Katie~baby wrote: »

The money will be dropped not the love care and attnetion she gets!! Would we ever see her without! NO way! We pay a fair whack each month and by having another baby and getting a reduction does not affect it greatly.

We pay more each week than what the mother does, if she matched what we paid then the child would be living more than comfortably! Of course the money will be reduced to the child i have at home as well, will this affect her! NO! She will be fed and clothed just as well as the first child and just as well as she has always been.

Its just the same as if you have no step children and you have more than one child, of course when you have the one child you spend everything on them then when you have more they obvouisly dont get as much.. Does this mean everyone should have just one child?

We would NEVER see the first child struggle, i dont know where ive sid that we would! The first child gets more money each month that what our child at home does so if the money is reduced she will be like the child we already have and shes not suffering!

We also dont claim any benefits, well apart from the usual wtc and ct, we have NEVER claimed Income Support and have never claimed jobseekers, my partner works hard and im a bloody good mother. We would like another child!Thats our choice! We would never see any child without!

If my partner left me and went on to have momre children and didnt pay any csa i would expect him to contribute towards things, but as long as my child was happy and loved by both parents then that would suit me fine! I dont agree that children need masses of money. My dd and step daughter are well loved happy little girls who adore each other, we wouldnt have it any other way!

:T :T :T :T :T :T :T :T :T :T :T :T :T :T :T :T :T :T :T

Here here