What do people here think of parents who don't pay child support?

[Hoss]

I've been on child support from many sides.

I was ordered to pay, which I did, even after I ended up in another marriage and had 3 steps to help support.

That same wife (the mom of my older girl), started abusing substances and used payments for herself.

Same wife, after 3 attempts by me, I got custody (for the safety of the child as her mom was still drugging and drinking), payments due me never came.

Same wife, managed to find a man to marry her again, he had wealth and was a politician with pull. She regained custody and payments, again I made them. 1 day I came by to pick up my little girl for our week together and she was unbathed, and her clothes were a mess. The new husband wasn't staying with her, he'd filed for divorce (for political expediency, considering the mess my ex had become). I got custody back, which I retained even after her mom got cleaned up. During that time she made only a handful of support payments, I never pushed it. Many years later, we are now friendly, well, cordial.

With my younger daughter, we weren't even sure about paternity, yet, I made all the payments as ordered. (We did eventually learn the paternity that's another issue.)

I can understand not wanting to make payments if suffering a financial hardship (file for restructure), or if the payments aren't going where they should. Ask that a listing showing purchases made, be submitted yearly, that's what my exwife, the mom of my older girl did, which was hysterical since she had years where she made no payments to me. I can even understand not wanting to make payments when the ex marries somebody new and they have a higher income. In the matter of the mom of my younger daughter, after she remarried, we created a special account for our child where any unspent payments were put in a bank, earning interest along the way and that money was given to our daughter when she turned 21.

There's rarely a reason not to make payments. The only reasons I can think of as valid are when there's proof the custodial parent is not using the money for the child (take it up with the courts) and or if the parent who is to make payments is out of work and can't pay, in which case, if they are at any time able to return to work they should make back payments (take that up with the courts.. Not paying because of dislike of the ex is not a valid excuse and hurts the children, possibly even destroyi ng a future relationship with them.

Moms and dads have a responsibility to any child they brought into the world. A dad saying 'she lied and said she was on the pill' don't cut it. You stuck your cock in and sent your boys swimming in open territory, you made the choice not to wear a condom. A mom saying 'he said he had a vasectomy' don't cut it either. It's known from early on that men will lie to get a lay, and that said you should demand he wear a condom or no sex. Not to mention all the STDs that are out there.

 

[Drifterwood]

All the stories about the nasty bitch mums are "there's this bloke I know, right...". Hmmm... second hand stories down the pub about what a cunt the ex-wife is, anyone? .

If you can pay, you should pay.

For fairness, I do know a man, who is deliberatly hurting his ex and effectively taking money off her that ought to be for their kids, even though he has remarried a much wealthier women.

I am not talking about blokes down the pub, I am talking about brothers and very close friends.

And I repeat, of course a man should pay for his kids, and of course he should get pissed off if the ex takes the piss because she can.

There is a further unfairness that was brought to my attention by second wives. "Bitch ex" rolleyes can fuck off, remarry and have more kids (just being the steretype for you). The financial restriction on the man paying support means that often he can not start a new family with a new partner. One partner can fully move on with their lives, one is often restricted. Of course men could be irresponsible and just have lots more kids and then go back to the court and say that they can no longer afford as much. Would that be OK?

 

[tripod]

My Dad paid around $130,000 in child support for me. He did that while buying houses and starting a new life with another woman. My Mom took the child support and was still as poor as shit working doubles as a waitress. We grew up in a single bedroom basement apartment while my Dad lived in spacious and nice houses.

My Mom's mother and Aunt still think that my Dad was a deadbeat because the State of Illinois held his child support for around half a year due to some red tape at one time.

My Dad willfully paid his money and I will always be grateful for that. :smile:

On another "positive and good dad" note, one of my ex girlfriend never even went to court to figure out child support and custody issues. Her and the child's father worked it out verbally and the man never missed a payment or didn't spend a weekend with his son.

Good fathers are rare and both men had solid fathers and came from unbroken homes. Plus, my ex-girlfriend and my Mom are good women too, they would never be the nightmare bitch ex.

I supposedly got a girl pregnant when I was 14. She denied that it was my baby but started a whisper campaign back where I grew up (that it was actually my baby all of the time) when I was around 19. I got scared and absolutely not curious at all and never reached out to the woman and her baby. She never found me either. This was before DNA testing and I guess she started looking like me as she grew up. I have no rights to be her father if it is true. I'm broke, I can't afford a kid or even a pet for that matter. lol?

 

[Hoss]

I supposedly got a girl pregnant when I was 14. She denied that it was my baby but started a whisper campaign back where I grew up (that it was actually my baby all of the time) when I was around 19. I got scared and absolutely not curious at all and never reached out to the woman and her baby. She never found me either. This was before DNA testing and I guess she started looking like me as she grew up. I have no rights to be her father if it is true. I'm broke, I can't afford a kid or even a pet for that matter. lol?

Yeah, there's more to being a parent than just money, Kids are crazy happy by just being with their mom or dad knowing there's love even if there's little or no money.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

Hoss - that's being a responsible parent, a good father and a real man. I know other men like you and this thread really isn't about trying to bung all the good non-custodial parents out there in with the confused and bitter ones. Glad you're here representing the good guys.

Drifter - I wasn't ignoring the part of your post you quote - I was saying that the bitch ex-wife stories are only coming in third party*. The fact that one second-hand story is about a seemingly 'bad man / good woman' case has no bearing on what I was saying.

* Hoss has now posted a first hand account - he's been quite clear that the situation went back and forth and he protected and supported his kids as best he could whether it was going his way or not. He doesn't sound whiny - he sounds matter-of-fact - rather like Lynn and Meg did.

And yes, you report these are good friends of yours, I have no reason to think you are lying - but these accounts are nonetheless second-hand anecdotes. The men actually in these situations are, for the most part, choosing not to post. I know it happens - men do get fucked over by the system - I'm not denying it, I'm not that blinkered.

It's also interesting that though there must be some non-paying non-custodial parents reading LPSG not one of them has chosen to post. If their reasons for not paying are valid and understandable then surely they should have no problem defending their actions.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

My experience

I got a divorce in california.
If the woman in the divorce was fully supported by the working male during their marriage, then the state allows the woman to incur ANY level of legal expense and the working parent gets saddled with the bill without any say.

my ex instigated 4 years of litigation. She lied to the court about her own income, and, without the slightest shred of evidence, claimed my income was twice what my tax returns showed it to be.

In multiple court hearings over the years before a different judge every time, I never got more than 7 minutes to present my situation, and the judges never bothered to read the documents pertaining to my income or the case. The judges generally assumed that BOTH parties were lying about the money ( I wasn't ) and so struck a median, rewarding my ex for her misrepresentations by setting my support based upon an income I did not actually have.

My friend got a divorce when he was between jobs... he had to pay $400 per month in child support for two children

I got a divorce when my income was relatively high. I had to pay $3,600 per month in child support for two children.
I paid it. But doing so meant living small time and Still having to deficit spend, amassing $70,000 in debt over the 8 years I had to pay support.
Not for fun things... for groceries, to pay the electric bill, to pay the tax bill.


Explain to me how my two kids required so very much more money to support than his two kids? They were the same ages, needed clothes and food just as often.

The issue was this...The money I paid was used to support HER, not my children... she used it to pay for her car, for her boyfriend's re-education, so she would not have to get a job... all kinds of stuff that had nothing to do with my children's needs.

AND she wanted extra for every visit to the doctor, every Xmas gift...

And when it came time for college... had she saved any of that $350,000 I had paid over the years toward their college education? No. But HER IRA was in very good shape.


Child support is necessary... but the truth is that Women are treated differently than men in this regard. They are routinely given primary custody... and they are routinely allowed to abuse the system whereas a man will be told by the judge to just step up and get a job.

At one point, I lost my house, and my means of earning a living, ( I worked out of my home studio ) because I could not get a judge to adjust my support payments lower...I literally had to flee the State to stop her litigating against me...

I could have stayed underground... I could have taken my income off the books...
but after two months of letting her stew, I called and offered to pay child support based upon, get this, Her tax return and my tax return ONLY.

I had to be at the point of bankruptcy before a woman judge looked my ex in the eye and told her, "honey, you need to get a job because This golden goose is dead".


So, no, I don't think support payments are generally fair in the state of california.
It is a brutal system that offers many men only the hobson's choice of evading support, or being financially ruined.

And to the poster who complained about her non-paying ex "sliding by" with only a studio apartment... and about his buying his daughter an iPod or hair cut...

Yeah, honey, I am sure he is thinking... WHEEEEE I get to live in a room the size of my college Dorm room! How handy to have my bed fold up into a couch or neatly into the wall so I can have space for my chair!

Grow up. If all he can afford, NOT paying support, is a studio apartment... where the hell will he live if he has to fork over that extra cash every month?

And if he occasionally scrapes together enough extra and buys something nice for his daughter...

THAT IS HIM SUPPORTING HIS CHILD... He bought her something She wanted that You did not have to...
Are you pissed because he got to buy it instead of giving you the money and you getting to buy it for her?
Or are you pissed because you would like the money for you to decide how to spend, on a bigger house, or bigger car or the myriad other things the custodial parent tells themselves are part of the cost of raising children... that they, themselves, get to derive a benefit from.

How many child support payments are used to help pay the mortgage on a house the children eventually move away from, and that the custodial parent gets the equity in?


For me it comes down to this... women want equality.
Fine.
Pay up equally,

Chlld support SHOULD work like this... Either whichever parent can best afford the costs of childcare get custody, so the other parent can focus on building career.

Or BOTH parents pay an equal amount into an escrow account to cover the child's expenses. This money can only be used to help pay a portion of utility bills, groceries, and to pay fully for the childs clothing, school supplies, gifts etc.
Both parents would have access to the books for this account and be able to hold the custodial parent to task for how the funds are distributed...


That said... I think a father steps up to the best of his ability.
And I think the custodial parent needs to understand that the non-custodial parent still has a right to live... to be able to afford to survive.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

For me it comes down to this... women want equality.
Fine.
Pay up equally,

Chlld support SHOULD work like this... Either whichever parent can best afford the costs of childcare get custody, so the other parent can focus on building career.

Or BOTH parents pay an equal amount into an escrow account to cover the child's expenses. This money can only be used to help pay a portion of utility bills, groceries, and to pay fully for the childs clothing, school supplies, gifts etc.
Both parents would have access to the books for this account and be able to hold the custodial parent to task for how the funds are distributed...


That said... I think a father steps up to the best of his ability.
And I think the custodial parent needs to understand that the non-custodial parent still has a right to live... to be able to afford to survive.

OK I really sympathise with your story Phil, but this last suggestion totally ignores that fact that the custodial parent is generally doing most of the child rearing. If payments in to this escrow account are going to be fair they need to be adjusted for this fact, that would mean that parents would compete for greater access on the basis that they might not have to pay as much in maintenance and ultimately the system would collapse.

 

[Drifterwood]

In all these "stories" MB, the men are still paying. It is what their money is used for or not used for that is their issue.

Do you have any reliable stats as to the number of persistent non/bad payers?

There will equally be rotten mothers reading this, and they won't be posting either.

Edit - an open ended system based upon income is ridiculous. There should be an upper limit. I don't see why anyone is entitled to a meal ticket or Golden Goose as Phil's Judge said.

 

[vince]

OK I really sympathise with your story Phil, but this last suggestion totally ignores that fact that the custodial parent is generally doing most of the child rearing. If payments in to this escrow account are going to be fair they need to be adjusted for this fact, that would mean that parents would compete for greater access on the basis that they might not have to pay as much in maintenance and ultimately the system would collapse.

There is something else to factor in. The custodial parent may be doing most of the child rearing, but they also benefit from being around the child and getting all that good parent-kid stuff. Being separated from your child is devastating emotionally and has costs far greater than anything to do with money.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

There is something else to factor in. The custodial parent may be doing most of the child rearing, but they also benefit from being around the child and getting all that good parent-kid stuff. Being separated from your child is devastating emotionally and has costs far greater than anything to do with money.

So in a shared access situation the custodial parent would be able to write off missing their kids when the non-custodial parent had them over against their payments into Phil's proposed account then right? You can see why I think the idea doesn't make much sense. :wink:

 

[vince]

So in a shared access situation the custodial parent would be able to write off missing their kids when the on-custodial parent had them over against their payments into Phil's proposed account then right? You can see why I think the idea doesn't make much sense. :wink:

I wasn't writing about a shared access arrangement. That's a different situation altogether. I think the point that Phil was getting at is the same that MB was. Equality and fairness.

I would have gladly traded places and been the custodial parent and had her pay half the expenses! What a deal that would have been.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

Phil - you are a notorious misogynist and, while your experience is undoubtedly valid, I'm reluctant to engage someone with such an obvious bias.

Also, your post makes the issue a man verses woman issue - that was not my intention for the thread. I know I can't control the responses or the overall direction of the thread but I can avoid contributing to it going in a direction I would personally like to steer clear of.

The only thing I will say on your point of equality is that it is all fair and good but there is no equality in pay at the moment, women with children are not treated the same in the workplace as men with children (including the fact that men don't get equal and fair paternity leave, I'm not monocular on this) and the role of primary care giver in opposite sex couples that work the same number of hours is still overwhelmingly taken by the female partner.

So - that all needs sorting out at the same time, doesn't it.

In all these "stories" MB, the men are still paying. It is what their money is used for or not used for that is their issue.

So, to play devil's advocate somewhat, the custodial parent must put his or her entire income AND the child support towards child-specific expenses and general household bills? Is that what you're suggesting?

As I said in an earlier post:

When one parent has custody of a child or children his or her household financially contains that child. Child support is allocated based on the child(ren)'s needs and both parents' income. If the custodial parent receives his/her salary on the 1st of the month and uses it up to pay for food, electric, household taxes, school books and a new pair of kids' shoes and then receives the child support on the 5th of the month and uses that money to pay the car payment it does not mean the child support has not been spent on the child(ren). Child support is a part of the custodial parent's income. Waiting 4 days to pay the bills does not change that.

There are exceptions where the custodial parent is clearly taking the piss - what 'taking the piss' consists of in the eyes of the non-custodial parent ordered to pay child support may have a considerably lower threshold than an independent third party might agree with.

Do you have any reliable stats as to the number of persistent non/bad payers?

For where? And no - do you?

It's also interesting that though there must be some non-paying non-custodial parents reading LPSG not one of them has chosen to post. If their reasons for not paying are valid and understandable then surely they should have no problem defending their actions.

There will equally be rotten mothers reading this, and they won't be posting either.

Interesting that you read my non-gender-specific post as being an attack on men only.

So in a shared access situation the custodial parent would be able to write off missing their kids when the on-custodial parent had them over against their payments into Phil's proposed account then right? You can see why I think the idea doesn't make much sense. :wink:

Ha, yes... well quite! :smile:

 

[Drifterwood]

So, to play devil's advocate somewhat, the custodial parent must put his or her entire income AND the child support towards child-specific expenses and general household bills? Is that what you're suggesting?

As I said in an earlier post:



There are exceptions where the custodial parent is clearly taking the piss - what 'taking the piss' consists of in the eyes of the non-custodial parent ordered to pay child support may have a considerably lower threshold than an independent third party might agree with.



For where? And no - do you?



Interesting that you read my non-gender-specific post as being an attack on men only.

Aren't you forgeting that they get the value of where they live and all the other expenses of their own lives from their own income? They would have these with or without a child. The question should be, how much more do they need for the child? How much should they pay, how much the ex? The ex still has to go and live somewhere and eat. Then of course there are any number of benefits that the now single parent can claim in the UK. This is why the CSA was so ferocious. If they couldn't make the non custodial pay, then we would have to pay.

The "stories" given, included the behaviour that was "unacceptable" to the payer.

I note that you are very careful not to make this a gender issue, and I was referring to the "stories" from "blokes down the pub" which were gender specific.

Actually, as there are very many more women working and earning much more than men now, I am interested to see how all this will pan out. I don't know yet of any cases where the bread winning mum is paying the stay at home ex dad. It must happen.

Re the stats, I do vaguely remember some UK CSA stats but they were a racial and demographic minefield for the politically correct. I'll have a look.

Here you go.

http://www.childmaintenance.org/en/publications/xls/CSA_jun09_tables.xls

 

[IntoxicatingToxin]

Meg, I've always had a lot of respect for you, but you've gone up a few more notches in my estimation now.

:redface: Thank you. :veryhappy:

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

See the thing is this, when you are married or in a functional relationship with your partner you can share all the responsibilities of parenting on an ad hoc basis, passing various responsibilities backwards and forwards according to necessity and practicality, that's the essence of practical parenting.

However once that relationship breaks down, and a divorce interposes a practical division between the parents this complex mutually agreed shared responsibility disintegrates and it often falls to the courts to make determinations about who should be charged with which responsibility towards their children

In many many cases courts simply decide that one parent will be the primary caregiver and custodial parent while the other will be a non-custodial parent with the responsibility to go and work to pay for the upbringing of the children and to some extent compensate the custodial parent for not being able to work full time themselves while they give full time care to the children.

This is a simple arrangement on first glance but in fact it involves a complicated set of subtle compromises which will have serious and long lasting effects both on the parents and the children.

The fact of the matter is that all of this is the symptom of the collapse of the practical working relationship between the parents. So the parents need to ask themselves are they happier being divorced and putting up with the complicated and difficult arrangements which being a divorced or estranged parent entails. Or alternatively is it simply a fait accompli that reality requires that the parents do not share all the responsibilities and they must simply get on with things the way they are.

Being an adult means accepting that life can be difficult, unpleasant, arduous, complicated, full of tribulation, and when I hear estranged parents (usually fathers it has to be said) complaining bitterly about the nightmare of being divorced and being a divorced parent I am ultimately forced to conclude that they must have little or no preparation for the demands being an adult and being a parent may place upon them.

If you don't want a complicated and at times harrowing life, then don't have kids with someone, and don't allow the relationship with your co-parent to collapse in acrimony. You are the author of your own destiny and you accepted the responsibilities of being a parent. Suck it up.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

Aren't you forgeting that they get the value of where they live and all the other expenses of their own lives from their own income? They would have these with or without a child.

Wasn't it you who was telling me about friends that were putting off doing something they really wanted to do in order to keep the kids' lives stable? Do you think that divorced / separated custodial parents are completely free to go wherever they want and do whatever they want? Or do you recognise that their parental responsibilities narrow their options significantly? (Even more so, in fact, than happily co-habiting co-parents who at least can count on each other other support and can make big life decisions together without having to get a judge say whether any potential life change is fair and allowable.)

I'm playing the mommy card here, D - but only a childless person would assume that having a child does not completely and utterly change and rule how one lives one's life. You know I would not be sitting where you know me to be sitting, conducting my life the way you know me to be conducting it, if I wasn't a parent. That was my choice - one I made happily and with eyes wide open, one I would not change, not for all Croesus' gold - but that does not mean it does not profoundly affect my options.

My life, what I can do with it, what I can earn and where I can take it would not be the same were I not a parent.

The question should be, how much more do they need for the child? How much should they pay, how much the ex? The ex still has to go and live somewhere and eat. Then of course there are any number of benefits that the now single parent can claim in the UK. This is why the CSA was so ferocious. If they couldn't make the non custodial pay, then we would have to pay.

I'm not so familiar with the UK system - here in France the benefits afforded to a lone parent are measured against income - including any support. The government support for those not being paid child-support is not generous, unless they are already entitled to other benefits due to low income, inability to work, etc.. It seems mostly fair.

The "stories" given, included the behaviour that was "unacceptable" to the payer.

Practically everything an estranged spouse does can register as 'unacceptable' with a certain type of person. That could be the non-custodial parent or the custodial parent, or both - that is why a legal procedure for custody and support is necessary in the first place.

I note that you are very careful not to make this a gender issue, and I was referring to the "stories" from "blokes down the pub" which were gender specific.

Was I speaking only to you and about your posts? No, I was observing a specific trend that was appearing in the thread, of which one part was a portion of one of your posts.

Actually, as there are very many more women working and earning much more than men now, I am interested to see how all this will pan out.

Many more than before or many more than there are men earning more than women? If you meant the latter then you are sorely misguided, but I think you meant the former - to which I reply several times fuck all is still fuck all.

I don't know yet of any cases where the bread winning mum is paying the stay at home ex dad. It must happen.

I know of one case of that happening in my extended circle of friends in Ireland. It seemed to work out well for all concerned, but then it usually does when the parents remain friends despite the split - as was the case with these two.

I'll look at the stats. Eventually. :smile:

 

[L_Lynn]

@ Phil:

I am sorry you got screwed. I really am. Your experience has obviously left you extremely bitter and I can't imagine that is of any benefit for your kids. I also hate women who act as your ex did because it discredits those of us who are trying to be reasonable.

In response to below-

And to the poster who complained about her non-paying ex "sliding by" with only a studio apartment... and about his buying his daughter an iPod or hair cut...

Yeah, honey, I am sure he is thinking... WHEEEEE I get to live in a room the size of my college Dorm room! How handy to have my bed fold up into a couch or neatly into the wall so I can have space for my chair!

Grow up. If all he can afford, NOT paying support, is a studio apartment... where the hell will he live if he has to fork over that extra cash every month?

And if he occasionally scrapes together enough extra and buys something nice for his daughter...

THAT IS HIM SUPPORTING HIS CHILD... He bought her something She wanted that You did not have to...
Are you pissed because he got to buy it instead of giving you the money and you getting to buy it for her?
Or are you pissed because you would like the money for you to decide how to spend, on a bigger house, or bigger car or the myriad other things the custodial parent tells themselves are part of the cost of raising children... that they, themselves, get to derive a benefit from.

1. I am legally required by our divorce decree to, "provide (my daughter) her own bedroom with a separate bedroom for (me)." His lawyer very slickly added that in. That puts the burden on me to afford a two bedroom apartment.

2. My ex quit his job voluntarily to work under the table so he would not be garnished. He was making more than twice what I was and only had to pay $365 a month at that point. (Higher than the initial court order- which was based on a conjectured income for me and tax returns for him- but only because he wouldn't pay on his own and it eventually went through the Justice Department and they charge interest.)

3. He then decided to go back to school, limiting his available work time, visitation time and income. Because of that decision, he moved into a smaller, cheaper "1 bedroom" cottage. But that was his choice AND he was not under any legal obligation to do anything different. See, he has that option, to go back to school and to scale down his living costs to do so; I don't. And I would love to go back. I just can't afford $800 a month in rent for a two bedroom apartment while working part time for $9 an hour and pay for tuition and books and all the other bills including....

4. Debt and medical bills. And here is a little understanding why it chaps my ass for him to buy iPods and fancy new computers and canoes, etc....

A- ...he is supposed to pay $225 every 3 months towards our debt. I gave him way too easy a deal on that. He made the payment once. And since he has no accountable income, guess who they come after? The creditors don't care that he is 50% responsible. He stays under the radar so it's all on me. And before you go asking about where that debt came from- yes, some of it was me buying diapers and formula and groceries since he was taking his paychecks, rolling them up and smoking them in the form of weed. But some of it was from him. He had his own card. He liked to eat out. He liked designer sunglasses. He wanted a new Dell laptop with all the bells and whistles.

B- ... he is supposed to provide health care for our daughter and to pay half her medical expenses. I took her off the state funded health care (which cost me only $8 a month) so he could put her on a private Blue Cross policy- his choice. The child support was adjusted for the $100 a month it cost him. Except he didn't pay it after 3 months. Not only did he not pay it, he didn't tell me she was no longer covered. Not only did he not tell me, he let me take her to an ENT not knowing she was covered. Not only did he let me take her to the ENT, but he showed up at the appointment himself. Not only was he at the appointment, but he didn't pay even half the office visit co-pay of $40 while he was there. And not only did he not pay half the office visit, he also did not pay any of the roughly $400 bill that showed up later because she wasn't covered.

And I will give you three guesses who buys the clothes, shoes, school supplies, toothbrushes, cold formulas, etc for both houses.

5. I am NOT your ex. I do not own a home. In fact, I share an apartment because I can't afford anything else, though I would have qualified for housing assistance if I was getting child support. My car is 15 years old and in serious need of repair. I do not own a fancy cell phone like him. I do not own a brand new computer like him. I do not have a new car like him, or a flipping canoe for that matter. I don't even have cable TV.

If the basics were covered first and the extras were just once in awhile, fine. But it's something new every week. He is talking cell phone now...for an 8 year old. Hmmm.... how much you want to bet that he will try to put it on my plan? Then it really won't happen! As it is, I share minutes with my mother so it costs less.

Know what though? It is what it is. It's the hand I've been dealt. Life goes on. And I don't think that all single dads are dead-beat bastards because of my ex. I don't even think of my ex that way. He's the guy I married and had a child with. He has made my life hell in ways I can't even list here, he is the reason I don't/can't move somewhere with more jobs available or closer to my family, he is the guy I will have to be dealing with for as long as I have a daughter so... I just suck it up and do what needs to be done.

Now, if you will excuse me, I need to go get school supplies and winter shoes.

 

[Drifterwood]

I'll look at the stats. Eventually. :smile:

Trust me, you have better things to do. I think that the CSA only gets involved when "men" don't pay. From what I can see, they are 60 to 70% successful at getting the miscreants to pay.

I don't know what percentage of men are miscreants. I suppose that I will have to go and find out to support my opinion that in fact, most men are not fucking around with their paynments. Add to this the 70% and in fact most men in the UK are doing the right thing by their kids.

Not all mommies are lovely and the examples I know where the man's support is being used to fund alcoholism and spending addiction at the cost of the kids is, IMHO, reasonable for the guy to get wholly fucked off about.

Regarding your choice to be a mum, the thing is for many men, they can have that ongoing lifestyle and significant contact taken away from them (95% of UK divorces are petitioned by the woman) lose their assets, maintain the old family and be left without enough to start a new family. The "system" does not do this to women. Please note that I am not saying that it is easy for women. I know it isn't. The problems faced by single parents is another issue that would be interesting to discuss (if you allow my anecdotes :smile.

No one answered my question whether it was OK if the ex man went off and had five more kids with someone else and so would have to reduce his support in order to support his new family.

In conclusion - most Dads do a great job by their kids after a divorce. Those that don't have a dedicated government agency to pursue them.

The assholes are assholes.

Being an asshole is not gender specific.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

I never said being an asshole was gender specific.

I do believe the majority of men are doing right by their kids. I never suggested otherwise.

Please point out to me where I have made this about men not doing the right thing. - All I did was make an observation that the second hand stories were, at that point, about men hard done by and the first hand accounts about women hard done by.

You and Phil, and others, seem determined to make this about one sex or the other being a cunt. It isn't.

Regarding my choice to be a mum vs the likelihood of a man having his kids taken away - ever heard the phrase 'with great power comes great responsibility'? Yes, there is a 'sacred cow' thing (pun intended) going on for mums - but that comes at a very high price. And yes, there are mums who shirk that responsibility and abuse the power, but the vast majority of us do not. Just as the vast majority of dads do not abandon their kids wilfully.

About the man having five more kids, I will say this: the custodial parent, male or female, cannot stop providing for the child(ren) in his/her care - in a situation where that person is not relying on government support he/she must balance the household books to include all children. In a situation where there is government support, that is usually adjusted depending on number of children.

SO... for the non-custodial parent with no government support, he/she also needs to balance the books. If he/she has five more kids beyond those he/she is supporting in another household then he/she needs to be able to pay child support and support the kids in his/her household - just as the custodial parent must provide for all the children in his/her care. In the situation where the non-custodial parent is receiving government support for his/her own household then the chances are, in Europe anyway, that the government is supporting the children that do not reside with him/her anyway. I don't see the difference? If there is a question of hardship then there is a system in place in most countries for the non-custodial parent to renegotiate child-support.

 

[Drifterwood]

I wasn't arguing MB. I was saying what I thought and we agree for the most part.

I gave three personal examples, two were men, one was a woman. It isn't gender specific, it just happens that under the current system and social structure, it falls predominantly to the ex man to move out and keep paying.

People have been giving their personal experiences.

I would guess that there are at least as many unworthy irresponsible mothers as there are absent fathers not paying.

Pigs will fly before people have the responsibility you refer to when they know that the State will pick up the tab. In areas around where I live, the system is well known and planned out, and if you can get a richer guy to knock you up so much the better. This is partly why the UK has the highest number of households that have never worked in Europe.

The very high price you mention in being a mother, isn't this outweighed by the very high reward? You don't have to be a mother, much as I don't have to get married.