My children no longer have my names! does this affect Child maintenance?

shoe*diva79

Mojisola wrote: »

They should.

They should is different to they have to which you referred.

Mojisola

shoe*diva79 wrote: »

They should is different to they have to which you referred.

There are a lot of laws that people should comply with but don't.

lazer

shoe*diva79 wrote: »

This is incorrect. My daughter is 'known as' with my surname at school, doctors, dentist etc etc without the need for permission from her father.

They shouldn't be doing this - if he father contacts them objecting to the known as name - they will have to use the legal name.

Bluemeanie_2

shoe*diva79 wrote: »

Oh dear. What difference does it make what names the children have? They are still your children and as such you have a legal and moral obligation to support them financially. The mother working or no is neither here nor there. She is entitled to get married and be a 'stay at home mum' if she wishes. The CM you pay will go towards covering costs of rent/mortgage/ council tax, water, gas, electric, food, birthday parties they attend, school uniform, shoes, clothes, activities, school trips... and the list can go on.

You can easily get a contact order in place to see your children. You dont need a solicitor, it costs around £200 and you can complete the forms yourself and represent yourself in court.

It amazes me that the attitude is "she is entitled to be a stay at home mum if she wishes" but yet when a man quits his job to avoid paying he's strung up. I don't see how being female means you shouldn't also provide for your children.

Bluemeanie_2

Basically it's all down to whether or not you have pr. if you were married when the children were born you have it and she would need your permission to legally change their names. If you were unmarried and they were born before the law changed in 2003 even if your name was on the birth cert you do not have PR (unless you get a court order granting it) if you were on the birth crest after the change of law in 2003 as the father than you have PR and she would need your permission to change them legally. As someone else pointed out they can be "known as" whatever name they wish. But without consent of all those with pr she cannot change their legal names. Hope that clears it up.

However annoying it does not affect your liability to pay csa

shoe*diva79

Bluemeanie wrote: »

It amazes me that the attitude is "she is entitled to be a stay at home mum if she wishes" but yet when a man quits his job to avoid paying he's strung up. I don't see how being female means you shouldn't also provide for your children.

Maybe the mum is remarried to a man who earns enough to give her the opportunity to stay at home and raise the children she has had? So the step father could be/would be providing towards child/children that are not even his.

Your post makes it sound like single mothers on benefits 'letting the state pay' for kids.

Not always the way!

FBaby

It amazes me that the attitude is "she is entitled to be a stay at home mum if she wishes" but yet when a man quits his job to avoid paying he's strung up. I don't see how being female means you shouldn't also provide for your children.

I think most pwc couldn't care less whether their ex work or not, as long as they kept their obligation to support their children, be it as a result of the nrpp working and contributing from their income, just like pwcps often do.

Marisco

FBaby wrote: »

I think most pwc couldn't care less whether their ex work or not, as long as they kept their obligation to support their children, be it as a result of the nrpp working and contributing from their income, just like pwcps often do.

One good thing about doing it this way is, the NRP gets to decide how much he (I use he for simplicity!) can afford to pay, not what the CSA thinks he can afford!

chriszzz

I have to disagree with the people who think its just a name...reverse the role, how many pwc would be happy for their children to change their name if the boot was on the other foot?
Why should pwc have the right to change the child's name, when they say if you were married you both have equal parental rights.....that is not the case in the UK!
It can be took away in an instant from the nrp, do you know what impact that has on that person, it is like the children have divorced the parent and their parental rights are taken away. Its not just a name, it is a name given to them children because it is who they are, their true identity and if it is only a name, as some would think, then why not leave the name in as it is!

chriszzz

All parents should contribute to their children's up bringing, financially and emotionally, unless the pwc and children are at risk!
No one should have to put their hand in their pocket to pay for solicitors just to see their children or stop the pwc changing their childrens name. If we share parental rights it should mean exactly that! Both divorced/seperated parents should stand up to the mark and carry on being parents to their children.
It is costly enough for both divorced/seperated parents who contribute financially, why should the nrp have to pay extra costs for solicitors to gain contact with their children or to stop a name change, its not them who are changing anything it is the pwc, so really it should be them paying solicitor costs if it has to go to court, they should prove that the nrp is a risk to the children and if that is founded then the nrp should pay the costs but innocent nrp's should never pay the costs!