Child Maintenance for children 3x with ex wife 2x with ex gf

Guest101

duchy wrote: »

I'm not sure wanting to pay the minimum he is legally obliged to is entirely fair . The mother of family 1 is basically getting less money simply because he has another failed relationship. Whatever way you look at it that family loses out. Fair would be topping up so she didn't get any less money as the children from family 1 still have the same financial need they had when he was with his girlfriend.

Ultimately the mum is equally responsible and you cant get blood out of a stone.


I agree he should pay more if he can, but it seems unlikely

clearingout

NotSuchASmugMarriedNow wrote: »

Why does he need the snip? He's paying for the children he's made. Maybe the mothers need to be steralised, I bet their not paying for their kids, I bet their money comes from CM and tax credits!

Wow. Really?

Personally I don't know of any women in this situation who don't go all out to support their children. But don't let that stereotype get in your way, will you?

Guest101

clearingout wrote: »

Wow. Really?

Personally I don't know of any women in this situation who don't go all out to support their children. But don't let that stereotype get in your way, will you?

Support in what way?


I know plenty to don't work.


So it's hardly a stereotype....

clearingout

Yes, a non-working, benefit-drawing stereotype.

Judge and jury. Thousands and thousands of women you know nothing about.

Guest101

clearingout wrote: »

Yes, a non-working, benefit-drawing stereotype.

Judge and jury. Thousands and thousands of women you know nothing about.

I don't see your point?


Their individual circumstances aren't relevant in the slightest.


The point was made that their are many parents who rely on the state and the ex partner(s) to support their child(ren)


The man was advised to have the 'snip' and the point was made that sterilisation is also possible.

duchy

Guest101 wrote: »

Ultimately the mum is equally responsible and you cant get blood out of a stone.


I agree he should pay more if he can, but it seems unlikely

In what way do you see Mum 1 as having responsibility for his choice to go on to have a second family with another woman ? How is it her place to tell him it's irresponsible to have more children than you can comfortably support?

You're not making sense.
She had two children with him that he could clearly afford. The decision to have a second family was in no way Mum 1s decision or responsibility. He could have had one child with her and subsequently had ten more with another woman ,by your reasoning the Mum of the first family carries equal responsibility ?? How ?

Guest101

duchy wrote: »

In what way do you see Mum 1 as having responsibility for his choice to go on to have a second family with another woman ? How is it her place to tell him it's irresponsible to have more children than you can comfortably support? - Huh? That's really not what I wrote, I don't see how you got to that conclusion, but since that wasn't the meaning, im not going to defend that position (I agree with you)

You're not making sense. - Probably because that's not what I said. There are two mums here. I was referring that each is responsible for their child(ren)
She had two children with him that he could clearly afford. (they*) The decision to have a second family was in no way Mum 1s decision or responsibility. - Agreed. He could have had one child with her and subsequently had ten more with another woman ,by your reasoning the Mum of the first family carries equal responsibility ?? How ?

Like I said, that was not (quite clearly) what I said.

duchy

Ah gotcha you think the second mother is as responsible as the man. Mum 2 however doesn't owe children of Mum 1 anything , that's the Father's job.

Clearly can afford is drawn from having subsequent children whilst paying CS for the first set so earning enough to contribute to the support of first family (both whilst with and after )didn't seem to be an issue.

It does seem an injustice that family 1 is penalised for the parents inability to sustain subsequent relationships but I don't see a better way to do it.