CSA ....an (absent) and bitter Dads point of view

clearingout

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

If it is shared care, why does anyone have to pay the other one? They both have to have a place big enough to accommodate the children, both arrange childcare and both pay for them while they are with them. Ideally they should share any child-related Benefits too.

because there are huge discrepancies in incomes? because where there is a discrepancy in income, mortgage raising capacity/rent paying capacity also varies? because discrepancies in income can mean one parent isn't eligible to receive any child-related benefits but the other is? because despite the fact that there is 'shared care', it can fall to one of the parents to pay for everything (childcare, activities, school uniform, school dinners etc.), usually the one who can least afford it? because some parents used 'shared care' as a means by which to reduce their child maintenance liability knowing full well there is no legal redress if they don't actually pay their fair share of child-related costs?

clearingout

medsec_222 wrote: »

My own feeling is that once a court ordered shared residence in place, the CSA have no business whatsoever, in tellilng one parent what he/she owes the other. The nature of a shared cared order already means that both parents are sharing the care of their children. It should be left entirely to the parents at this point to discuss between themselves how extras such as school holidays, school uniforms etc. should be paid for. Dads who have been through the Courts to obtain shared residence of their children have already proved their commitment to their children.

bollox. total and utter bollox. Plenty of fathers who have been through court to obtain shared residence of their children do so as a means by which to control their ex partner/spouse with no intention whatsoever of sharing care of anyone or anything at any conceivable level. My ex got his Order and promptly disappeared for 15 months.....when he 'cared' for them 3 nights a week he frequently failed to pick them up from school ('stuck in traffic'), regularly dropped the eldest late for school, never sent them with what they needed (plate of cakes, fancy dress, extra 50p...) so they always missed out on activities, paid for nothing - no childcare, no school uniform, no school trips. Nothing at all. Even now, 5 years later, I am stuck paying full-time childcare because he cannot be trusted to pick up/drop off when he's supposed to or make alternative arrangements (and I have no issue with the children being picked up by his family or latest girlfriend). I have literally had to fork out a small fortune this week to keep my eldest child doing an activity he does on his dad's time - which he hadn't paid for 6 months: for 6 months he'd been telling the organisers he would pay it 'next week'. Finally, they contacted me and apologised but said they would have to give his place to a paying child if something wasn't sorted soon. He has yet to pay a penny of maintenance and it is likely he never will, despite the existence of the Law, the CSA and all the bells and whistles it has used to try and get money out of him.

I would not for one moment suggest that there are men out there who are genuinely denied contact with their children and who, if 'allowed' to share care, would do so with dignity and respect with the best interests of the children in mind at all times. But no way on this earth has every man who has been through court proved their commitment to their children. Nor is he automatically ready and willing to share the financial commitment required of bringing up his children. Mine is not an isolated case - I know any number of women who have been through similar.

mania112

Do you think matters would improve if the RULE was that a NRP (who wasn't a criminal or untrustworthy) would ONLY pay CSA if the PWC allowed access to the child(ren) AND
a NRP had to pay an extra penalty if he/she refused to care for the child(ren).

This would

1) Reduce the number of NRPs who couldn't afford the money or stress involved with gaining access through the court.

2) Reduce the likelihood a bitter PWC refusing a NRP access.

3) Improve the likelihood the child(ren) would continue their relationship with NRP.

It's bribery, but it's a solid strategy!

seven-day-weekend

clearingout wrote: »

bollox. total and utter bollox. Plenty of fathers who have been through court to obtain shared residence of their children do so as a means by which to control their ex partner/spouse with no intention whatsoever of sharing care of anyone or anything at any conceivable level. My ex got his Order and promptly disappeared for 15 months.....when he 'cared' for them 3 nights a week he frequently failed to pick them up from school ('stuck in traffic'), regularly dropped the eldest late for school, never sent them with what they needed (plate of cakes, fancy dress, extra 50p...) so they always missed out on activities, paid for nothing - no childcare, no school uniform, no school trips. Nothing at all. Even now, 5 years later, I am stuck paying full-time childcare because he cannot be trusted to pick up/drop off when he's supposed to or make alternative arrangements (and I have no issue with the children being picked up by his family or latest girlfriend). I have literally had to fork out a small fortune this week to keep my eldest child doing an activity he does on his dad's time - which he hadn't paid for 6 months: for 6 months he'd been telling the organisers he would pay it 'next week'. Finally, they contacted me and apologised but said they would have to give his place to a paying child if something wasn't sorted soon. He has yet to pay a penny of maintenance and it is likely he never will, despite the existence of the Law, the CSA and all the bells and whistles it has used to try and get money out of him.

I would not for one moment suggest that there are men out there who are genuinely denied contact with their children and who, if 'allowed' to share care, would do so with dignity and respect with the best interests of the children in mind at all times. But no way on this earth has every man who has been through court proved their commitment to their children. Nor is he automatically ready and willing to share the financial commitment required of bringing up his children. Mine is not an isolated case - I know any number of women who have been through similar.

Amongst the small amount of divorced people that I know, two couples have shared care and the men are just as devoted to their children as the mother and just as committed. Both parents earn similar amounts in each case and there has also been a re-marriage of one parent in each case.

I think it very wrong to intimate that men do not care for their children as much as women do.

FBaby

Like many, shared care will means different things in different situation. A friend of mine found out her husband had been cheating on her for years. She had always worked full-time as they accrued debts and they wanted to pay them all off. He never really cared for the children, she was clearly the main care giver, the one to always drop the kids to school, picking them up from after school club, taking them to their activities, birthday parties at week-ends. He always refused to get up early in the morning, never got up once in the night etc... Yet when she confronted him, he decided it was time to officially move in with the girlfriend....and then claim that he wanted shared care. She refused and he took her to court. The judge was very clear to tell him to get lost as he had been bothered to take on that role before and he was expecting the new girlfriend, who the kids had never met to take over much of the responsibility during their time with them. In the meantime, my friend was beside herself that she would have to suddenly spend half of her time without the kids through no fault of hers at all. Unsurprisingly, since it was refused, he decided to move 100 miles away and only sees his kids occasionally when it suits him.

However, I have another friend who is clearly using her children to her advantage. The children are older and have themselves said they would like shared care. They are very close to their dad who always been very much part of their lives. She admitted to us that her reason is because if she agrees to it, she will be stuck in that town for the next 5 years and she might want to move. She has been seeing someone for a couple of months who lives 1 hour away, and I can't help wonder whether this is worried she wouldn't be able to move in with him (as I understand he has his business there and might not be able to relocate either). We are a group of friends and we have told her that it wasn't fair on the kids, but she brushes it off, saying that in the end, her life shouldn't stop because of what he wants.

I think shared care is not an easy option at all as there are so many issues that can get in the way, but when it works out, it can be brilliant for the kids. I dated a man who had shared care of his daughter. He got along ok with the mum so that both could be flexible and agree things between themselves reasonably.

medsec_222

I am proud that I have raised a son who is totally committed to his children. To be honest he would walk round with holes in his socks (and he has done), before he would see his boys go short of anything. He does everything that a loving parent should do for his boys, he feeds them, clothes them, looks after them when they are unwell and takes them to the doctor and dentists, everything a mother should do, and sometimes more. His shared care order means everything to him, as it ensures that he can offer his children at home.

Shared care actually means that both parents offer the children a home, so I am not sure why a father would want to go through the Courts at a cost of thousands of pounds, just to drop out of the lives of their children when it suited him. I don't understand this.

clearingout

medsec_222 wrote: »

I am proud that I have raised a son who is totally committed to his children. To be honest he would walk round with holes in his socks (and he has done), before he would see his boys go short of anything. He does everything that a loving parent should do for his boys, he feeds them, clothes them, looks after them when they are unwell and takes them to the doctor and dentists, everything a mother should do, and sometimes more. His shared care order means everything to him, as it ensures that he can offer his children at home.

Shared care actually means that both parents offer the children a home, so I am not sure why a father would want to go through the Courts at a cost of thousands of pounds, just to drop out of the lives of their children when it suited him. I don't understand this.

are you suggesting I'm lying? or that people aren't capable of such sustained anger, hatred and bitterness that the only thing that matters to them is the complete destruction of the person they once said they loved? And that the best way of doing that is through the children? Perhaps I imagined my ex slamming a car into my 19 week pregnant stomach? Or did I misunderstand when he refused to hand back a 10 month old breastfed, screaming baby to his mother? Perhaps I don't understand how important it was that both he and his girlfriend drove around in top-end, high spec cars whilst the mortgage on the 'family home' went unpaid so that on the day I went into labour with our third child, I was dealing with threatened repossession of my home by the mortgage company? Perhaps when he took his girlfriend to the same hotel we got married at and revelled in getting his then 5 year old son to tell me all about it he didn't mean to have that poor child put in the terrible position of having just made his mother cry? Perhaps I have imagined the number of women he has introduced our children to over the last 5 years, each and everyone happy to stand by him whilst he refuses to pay maintenance, live the high life, and tell my children choice snippets of what they think about me such as 'your mother is a f***ing dirty s**g' and 'you'll never see your mummy again, I'm your mummy now'.

Court fees are a mere drop in the ocean to a high-earning businessman like my ex. Only he knows why 'shared care' of 3 days a week wasn't enough for him (that's 'shared care' where I did all the fetching and carrying and paying and he put the children to bed and got them up again in the morning), but I'd hazard a guess he thought that he could use his 'upstanding member of the community business acumen' to remove me from our children's lives altogether. Thankfully the judge saw him for what he is (and actually reduced the time he spent with the children) - which is yet more evidence that this is a regular scene in family courts in our country because if it wasn't, I would no longer see my children, let alone be their main carer. Men who abuse don't necessarily use their fists. *Sigh*. All PWC are just out to get their exs, aren't they?

his_wife

single sue,,, like you i have had to fight my ex to see his/our children, i took him to court, only for him to say to the judge , that he had a new life now, and that the children wernt part of it, he would see them twice a year on his terms or not at all,,,, he has seen them once in five years!!

I do think, that , the csa, find it easier to "chase" the absent parents who do pay, rather than the ones who dont!!


The problem with break ups, is, yes a lot of it does boil down to money, a lot of it also gets embroiled in a war, and the children become weapons.

In an ideal world, all abscent parents would have shared care, and children would live happy ever after. however in reality, some absent parents will walk on broken glass for their children whilst others will run for the hills.

supersaver2

Clearing out, why do you always seem to think threads are about you personally? Med sec didn't even mention or quote you, plus calling another person's opinion 'bollox' is just rude.

hb1

Well said Mania 112!