I dont know too much about how payments work but I read a very interesting debate on netmums (Im a lurker) that got me thinking....

Should dads always pay maintenance? My instinctive answer was yes they bloody should!!! But, as the thread went on I did start to consider other peoples points.

A couple of people on the thread thought that their OHs shouldnt have to pay maintenance to an ex as it was detrimental to the kids in their relationship. Examples used included mums getting with a new partner who was a high earner and also earning herself and then getting maintenance off an ex who had a new partner and low income. Some people thought that the dad shouldnt have to pay maintenance to a mum who already has more than enough to live comfortably while they had to struggle. They said that subsequent children were suffering.

Another thing is should maintenance affect benefits? Atm as far as im aware maintenance isnt included as income (please correct me if im wrong!) Would this be a fairer way to cut down the benefits bill by taking a certain % of payment and using it as income to reduce a payment made by govt? (Only prob I can see is the payments maybe wouldnt be relaible I suppose).

I still think men should always pay maintenance as a matter of principal... but then I can see other people's point
Whats your views/experiences?

This is a subject very close to me heart snoopy.
I have 4 children to 2 different dads and i dont get maintenance payments from either dad!! It makes my blood boil that they dont pay to the upkeep of their children that they both wanted and agreed to have with me. It seems so unfair that while i am left holding the baby so to speak, they both have no or feel no responsibility to their children!!

So my answer is yes they god damn well should pay for their children whether they have contact with them or not!

yes id say yes too...but also see what theyre saying

when i was on incme support and ex(also then an ex lol) paid me maintenace it came out of my income support

the only time id dissagree is if the mother for no good reason wasnt allowing the dad to see the kids, if they didnt see the kids for an actaul reason (ie kids safety, domestic violance, drug abuse ect) then yes they should still pay even more of a reason if you ask me of theyre not helping in any other way xx

This is a difficult one - yes men should always 'help' to provide for their children. However I have seen all too many times men left with literally nothing to their name and no roof over their heads because of crippling maintenance payments. I think they should be worked out in a fairer way.

One example is a friend of my dad's. His wife and him had 4 kids together, she left him for another man and basically threw him out of his own home and moved this other bloke in. He accepted this to keep a stable roof over his childrens head but he was still liable for half of the mortgage. However he was then landed with a monthly maintenance bill that meant he couldn't afford to even rent anywhere. He ended up living in a caravan on a mates farm which then meant that he couldn't provide a suitable environment to have his children over night. If you don't have your children over night for an average of 1 night a week over a year then you have to pay more maintenance. He was a doting dad and it broke his heart that he couldn't see enough of his kids. It would have been far far cheaper for him to quit his job and go on benefits - he would have been housed and had his maintenance payments cut to £5 a week - obviously as a decent human being he wouldn't do this. How can it be right that the mother gets the house, full access to the kids, a large portion of the fathers income, all the CB/CTC as well as have a double income household and a father, through no fault of his own, is left with barely enough to feed himself?

Our situation is different but it's still a huge bug bare of mine. Basically when my OH and his ex split they had A LOT of debt, most of which was Credit and store cards etc that his ex and daughter had run up BUT they were all in my OHs name so basically he was saddled with paying everything. There was also other things that he was paying like sky and mobile phone contracts that he was tied into for 12-24 months that he simply could not get out of. So basically he walked away with nothing, his ex wouldn't even let him keep his own sat nav, and was left paying for their sky (tv, internet, landline) and mobiles which had bill run up into hundreds and hundreds of pounds AND all the debts. On top of this he pays quite high maintenance and also half towards any college equipment, uniforms etc. Now OHs daughter is 18 but still in full time education (well 16 hours a week ), she has a job and recieves EMA from the government for going to college - this combined with her 'allowance' from the maintenance means that all told an 18 year old studant has more money per month to live on (food, travel, clothes, etc) than us as a family of 4 with 2 babies - is this right? what do you think?

xx

I dont think it's really as black and white as should dad's pay maintenance or not... because like Debs said pointed out there are situations where it really isn't fair.

My step dad split up with his wife and they had 3 kids together (obviously he's now with my mum) wel he absolutely doted on those kids too and wanted to see them whenever he could, his eldest went to school with my mums youngest and there was no problem with having the extra 3 kids at our house. He paid maintenance like he was "meant" to.

Then she met another man and stopped my step dad from seeing the kids, she told them vile lies about him and my mum and even sent fake messages from the kids phones to my step dad saying things like " I dont want to see you ever again our not my dad so and so is" and now she's moved them all to Canada. She didn't even use the maintenance he paid for the kids anyway.

I dont see why my step dad should pay anything to the wife anymore as he is never going to see them.. they've been taken away from him and turned against him. I know he's is still putting money aside for them anyway in the hope that one day they will come looking for him.

but no... I don't think that Dad's should always pay maintenance. Depends on the circumastances really.

Fair enough I see your point debs, and I am not suggesting crippling payments to leave the father with nothing, but I definitely thing the father should have some financial responsibility for the kids.
My first husband has dodged the CSA for 7 years, he now owes over £24000 in arrears. It's been taken to court, bailiff action has been taken, he's been under investigation and still I have not received 1 penny from him. God knows how he does it! He works, has 1 other child but lives alone. So to me he has no good reason not to pay for his kids. No he doesn't see them but why should that make a difference!
My second husband on the other hand doesn't pay because of where he is! Now yet again I am left 100% responsible for the children because of something he has done! And no doubt when he is in a position to pay he won't as yet again he won't be seeing the kids and I am 100% sure he will have the same attitude as my first husband!!
So from the other side of the coin, the system is completely unfair for women!!!

I think men should still pay whether they see the kids or not (only if NOT is out of their own choice though...) well noy their own choice obviously some circumstances are different, but I mean if the mum is being a biatch and won't let the dad see the kids just to be spiteful then I dont know if he should be expected to pay. I would hope msot dads would WANT to help out their own kids but sadly I doubt many are like this.

Mara in your case I think your right you absolutely should be paid money by both men, the circumstances are completely different, as if you would ever let ben see his kids again he doesn't deserve them! but because it his only his actions that have put him in this situation then he should pay towards them.

It's a hard one isn't it - if the government had the time and money, they should have to review each case individually and make a fair decision based on all of the circumstances with everyones circumstances taken into consideration but I just don't think they have the resources to do that

Mara how can your first husband get away with not paying even after being taken to court etc? thats madness!!

The CSA need a huge dirty great big rocket up their arses tbh. They seem to screw the genuine blokes and can't be arsed to chase the bastards that think it's fine to leave their children penniless.

Donna I think it's disgusting that you don't get anything from either of them. I don't know the circumstances of your first marriage but as far as Ben is concerned every single penny he has should be taken from him and given to you for the children.

I agree with Jade that if the mother prevents the father from seeing the kids then he shouldn't have to pay her. I also think its a nice idea that your step dad is putting money aside for his kids when/if they get in contact again. It shows that he cares and still thinks about them every day even though he isnt allowed to see them. Its very sad tbh that a woman would prevent a loving father from seeing his children. Obviously I don't mean in cases where the father is a threat to the children or an unsuitable influence in their life.

xx

Jade he has been very clever. It seems that if you never ever reply to any letters from the CSA you never have to pay!! No matter how many time I ring up (and believe it's been hundreds of times) they just can't get him. He was made liable in court for the amount and that was 2 years ago so it will be more now but he still doesn't pay.
I did fight him in court for 3 years over the kids and it was ruled he could only contact the kids via indirect contact. He was and still is a violent alcoholic, who was violent to both me and the kids, so yes I was responsible for stopping him see the kids in a way. But just in case anyone disagrees with this, let me ask you, would you leave your kids with him?

I don't think anybody would disagree with that hun.

I am shocked at the way the whole process is managed tbh

I think us BANDA ladies should set up our own political party and run for government! We could do wonders to reform policy and the way this country is run. Jade of course you could be cypriot ambassador

xx

mara, i cant believe he hasnt paid in all that time, and got away with it

as i said befor, if the kids are unsafe in his care(domestic voilence like you said) then they should be made to pay more than a dad who say see's his kids twice a week, as you are getting no help whatso ever!!
say if i was to be spitefull and not allow my ex to see the kids...for no GOOD reason, they why should i expect him to pay, but like jade said surely they would want to anyway??

but debs has brough up some good points, makes you rethink the whole thing tbh xx

I think that it takes 2 people to make a baby and as such both should have to share financial responsibility of that decision. I know there's an argument for when accidents happen and 1 party doesn't want to have a child, but IMO if your prepared to have unprotected sex, or not take adequate precautions then that's just your own fault and does not absolve responsibility. It should be one rule for all and people should be mature enough to come to amicable agreements dependent upon personal circumstances. If there were different rules for many different circumstances it would be up for even more abuse than it suffers already. This is only my view on the financial side of things.

I think it's just a lot of crap to be honest... not the maintenance lol but the way the system works.

mara I can't beileve they let your ex get away with not paying anything and totally agree with you not letting him see the kids, like I said thats a reason of his own doing (plus he clearly can't be trusted!!) therefore he should pay. I'm shocked at how easily he has got away with not paying!

haha Debs that's a good idea - wonder how hard it would be to do!! the banda pandas government party.. I like it !

I dont think the issue should be about access to kids, tbh I think thats irrelevant as its not the kids fault if mums in some circumstances are being petty and using access as a form of spite/control. Why should the kid suffer? I think most mature men should just swallow it & pay for the children they 'made' and try and sort out access in the courts if they want to. I dont think being denied access is a valid arguement for stopping paying, to me thats just taking it out on the kids.

I think men should pay, I see Lisa's point that there is prob no point in confusing an already highly flawed system but surely something could be done to make it fairer. It does seem odd that a woman can earn £20k, have a new husband who earns £40k and still receive £100 a month from a man earning £25k and supporting a family himself. In saying that the ex should still be responsible and the new husband shouldnt be liable 100%... but then if you marry someone obviously you are going to love and provide for your wife's child.

There prob isnt an answer to this question. Iv actually surprised myself that iv said in some circumstances I can see why men should pay less. Im just putting out random thoughts, i'l prob come back to this again later!

Hmmmm I can totally see your point but the child is not the new husbands responsibility, they are the financial responsibility of the mother and father. I am almost certain the if I ever get married and my new husband is a high earner I would discuss options with both her daddy and step dad. If my husband wanted to support Amelia then I would allow it but I don't think that Dave would. He's devoted to Amelia and would never ever dismiss his part as a parent, that includes financial responsibility. I think in cases like that it is for all parties to be mature adults and discuss the financial options. If the step dad were to adopt the child that would absolve the bio father of all financial responsibility.

snoopy21 wrote:

I dont think the issue should be about access to kids, tbh I think thats irrelevant as its not the kids fault if mums in some circumstances are being petty and using access as a form of spite/control. Why should the kid suffer? I think most mature men should just swallow it & pay for the children they 'made' and try and sort out access in the courts if they want to. I dont think being denied access is a valid arguement for stopping paying, to me thats just taking it out on the kids.
!

I can see where your coming from there it shouldn't matter whether the dad sees the kids or not BUT at the same time, if the dad isn't seeing the kids, just giving the mum money, she could be blowing it on absolutely anything. I think my step dad tried to pay for things rather than giving her money as she did just blow it. He wanted to pay their school fees and things like that. I suppose that is a good solution for dads who are being denied access because of a petty mum... they should pay for real things that way they know their money's going to good use

LisaGandAmelia wrote:

Hmmmm I can totally see your point but the child is not the new husbands responsibility, they are the financial responsibility of the mother and father. I am almost certain the if I ever get married and my new husband is a high earner I would discuss options with both her daddy and step dad. If my husband wanted to support Amelia then I would allow it but I don't think that Dave would. He's devoted to Amelia and would never ever dismiss his part as a parent, that includes financial responsibility. I think in cases like that it is for all parties to be mature adults and discuss the financial options. If the step dad were to adopt the child that would absolve the bio father of all financial responsibility.

I definitely agree to a point.
Ben took on the financial responsibility to Chel and Tom. It was his wish to do that and as their dad refused to do this i allowed it also. He even got parental responsibility granted through the courts so in my opinion he was responsible for those 2. We also went through the adoption process but it got denied as their bio dad rejected it. But still refused to pay!?
Its not as simple as black and white unfortunately in all cases. It would be fab if every dad was as devoted as Dave and i thank god for you and Amelia that you are able to be amicable hun xxx

Or maybe i am just a bitter woman who has been shyte on from a great hight by two bastards and want every man to suffer llol

umm dunno... Oh pays maintence, which is fine I think he should contribute towards his son.... BUT her partner now earns more than my OH and always buying OHs son new toys, games for his computer, takes him out.... where OH finds it hard to do as after he pays his bit & with the 2 girls now he doesnt have anythin else left to spend on his son or girls if Im honest.

She moans then when he needs new shoes or clothes and askes for more (which again OH doesn mind when he can see where the money is going) but when I think how much he pays her a week, I think well no way he 'costs' that much to keep so to speak. the 2 girls together dont cost that much... and then I see her goin on holiday 3 times a year with new partner, not saying shes spending his money but some times feels like that when we cant afford a caravan weekend holiday with us and girls.

what else gets me, when it comes to our TC and WTC they dont take into account his maitenance or OH has another child, which then takes a chunk out of his wages so we have very little left, but TC and WTC dont see it.

xxx

My experience is from the fathers side, as most of you know I have a step daughter. Unfortunately she was a product of a one night stand and her mum and Simon have always hated each other, the CSA got involved when Tia (SD) was about 2 with them insisting a DNA test was done. Tia's mum however wouldnt let Simon see Tia, he paid every week, had to go through hell because she allowed his mum and dad to see her but not him. It was only when she was about 6 that she allowed him to see her, but wouldnt tell her he was her dad.

During this time he was paying every week without fail, and it was alot of money around 25% of his wages, while she was working more hours than she declared and had a housing assosciation house, was claiming benefits etc. so 'earning' more than me and Simon put together.

What has always peed us off is that when it came to reviewing Simon's payments the CSA wanted details of MY wages/outgoings etc too, why should they?? In my opinion it's between mother and father - thats it, not only that but it should be 50/50 with both parents sharing the costs. Simon was paying over £50 a week, if thats half of what it costs to feed/clothe etc that means £100!! I know thats a ridiculous amount of money. (especially when the clothes she used to wear were cheap and usually too small for her).

Debs was right when she said they penalise those that actualy want to pay and be a part of their childrens lives and the loser fathers that disappear and dont pay a penny get away with it! x

Susan,Libby+1 wrote:

What has always peed us off is that when it came to reviewing Simon's payments the CSA wanted details of MY wages/outgoings etc too, why should they?? In my opinion it's between mother and father - thats it, not only that but it should be 50/50 with both parents sharing the costs. Simon was paying over £50 a week, if thats half of what it costs to feed/clothe etc that means £100!! I know thats a ridiculous amount of money. (especially when the clothes she used to wear were cheap and usually too small for her).

they've never asked for mine... but no thats what I mean same as OH he pays £50 and like you say if thats half thats £100 a week!! no way!!

I joke to OH somedays, I'd be better off being on my own if I was gettin £50 a week!! plus if OH wages dont meet the correct amount, say hes been off sick or when he was off on paternity pay, they wont take from him that week as wont leave him under a certain amount, fair enough.... BUT they then will take double the amount the following week when back to normal!!! which leaves him with nothing!!! huh how does that work??! system all to pot!!!

I know someone (who happens to be OH sisters ex) he had kids with another woman before OH sister, CSA is after him for 15 odd years but he just ignores the letters, phone calls, 15 years hes got away with no paying a penny!!! I think thats awful on 1 CSA they should track him down and arrest (they know where he lives!!!) and 2 he doesnt care about his daughter, or helping her out at all. mind saying that now since hes spilt with OH sister he has said he never wants to see his kids again if he has to pay for them!! he's proper jermery kyle matterial! I cant stand him hes a w***** total waste of space! really should be castrated Im telling you!! Id quite happily do it!!! so people like that I dont think should get away without paying a penny, but those who are willing to pay shouldnt be so harsh. x

I didnt know they asked for dads new partners income susan! Thats interesting. If they look at it that way then I think they should take into account mums new partners financial situation too when calculating fair payments. Em's point about TC not seeing that some income isnt even income as such is a good point when it comes to having enough money to raise her girls.

Bringing up a child should be 50/50 costs wise but even in stable relationships it isnt. eg one parent usually earns more than the other and its accepted that they pay more for the children/house. Perhaps in a split they should look at total disposable incomes including both 2nd partners & the other children to be considered and work it out from there - again iv no frigging clue how they would do this & admit it would prob cost a bomb in admin/civil service costs.

I did cringe a bit when I read on the netmums thread people commenting on the fact that the ex mum goes out/has holidays/bought a coat from Oasis etc. I can see how that would upset some people but at the same time if they are managing their money well, sticking withing benefit rules etc it could be perceived that some people begrudge mums a new life/having control over their money. It is difficult. I can see how a child doesnt cost £100 a week but then its not just food, clothes, etc its heat, light, nurserys, tot groups, petrol to and from places. (Then again I suppose CB and CTC covers this....) Argh I dont know what my opinion is again !

See the thing is Snoops that we KNOW the mother's lifestyle and the money certainly wasnt being spent on Tia, for a start she was fobbed off to her nanny's (her mum's mum) for at least 3 nights a week so really it was only for 4 days that she had to provide a roof over her head/feed her, her nanny would buy her clothes, Tia told us herself that her mum only bought her pj's for her! So where the hell was this £50 going??

It has reduced since then because I am only part time now and off course we have Libby but it's still a fair amount.

I do believe fathers hould pay their way, whether they see the children or not but it's the unfairness of it all xx

Just out of interest ladies - WHAT do you think the money should be for?

For example - is it my OH's responsibility to provide a roof over his daughters head (or 1/2 a roof) i.e contribute towards her mother's rent, council tax etc etc as well as the obvious food/clothes etc

OR is it the resident parents responsibility to provide the roof and non resident parents towards 50% of consumables - i.e. food, clothes, utilities etc only?

My personal opinion is the 2nd option. I don't see why my OH should have to contribute towards his ex's rent - if his daughter wasn't there this cost wouldn't reduce. He provides a 'roof over her head' when she stays with him - why should he also contribute towards another. Obviously any expence that is incured as a result of his daughter living there i.e. electric, gas, water, food, clothes, exspences related to education and general pocket money should be split 50/50. But then my OH pays £70 a week so does it really cost £140 a week for these things?

Another thing that worries me about the way it is worked is when there are new siblings - like in our case (me, susan, em). We are literally scraping by at the moment and after food and petrol each week we have about £10 left for 'treats' (this includes clothes for all 4 of us or if we want to take the kids to soft play etc) yet OHs daughter has new clothes, nights out every week, takeaways and meals out with her friends every other day, holidays booked and a new phone (on a £35-£40 a month contract) at least twice a year. My kids have to rely on grandparents for treats really and my mum buys the majority of their clothes to help us out (we are very lucky in this respect) and this really upsets my OH that he can't take them places very often. It's not too much of an issue as we have a huge age gap but if OHs daughter was younger how would our kids feel to see their sister wearing the best designer clothes and going away on holiday all the time when we cant afford to give them any of that? I think it could cause resentment between siblings?

xx

mara wrote:

LisaGandAmelia wrote:

Hmmmm I can totally see your point but the child is not the new husbands responsibility, they are the financial responsibility of the mother and father. I am almost certain the if I ever get married and my new husband is a high earner I would discuss options with both her daddy and step dad. If my husband wanted to support Amelia then I would allow it but I don't think that Dave would. He's devoted to Amelia and would never ever dismiss his part as a parent, that includes financial responsibility. I think in cases like that it is for all parties to be mature adults and discuss the financial options. If the step dad were to adopt the child that would absolve the bio father of all financial responsibility.

I definitely agree to a point.
Ben took on the financial responsibility to Chel and Tom. It was his wish to do that and as their dad refused to do this i allowed it also. He even got parental responsibility granted through the courts so in my opinion he was responsible for those 2. We also went through the adoption process but it got denied as their bio dad rejected it. But still refused to pay!?
Its not as simple as black and white unfortunately in all cases. It would be fab if every dad was as devoted as Dave and i thank god for you and Amelia that you are able to be amicable hun xxx

Or maybe i am just a bitter woman who has been shyte on from a great hight by two bastards and want every man to suffer llol

You see Donna this is where the system falls flat on it's arse. For him to be able to get away with not providing for his child simply should not be possible. It should be taken directly from his wage or benifits and his assests sold to cover the back log.

Fathers (and in rarer cases mothers) should not be able to dodge their responsibilities, there needs to be much more drastic and serious consequences. It makes me sick that people don't want to or simply don't provide for their offspring. It takes 2 to make a human being regardless of the circumstances

Donna I am eternally grateful that Dave is a good Dad and wants to contribute more than is necessary to Amelia. I sincerly count my lucky stars and I just wish that all women in my position were as lucky as I am, society and law should ensure that everyone is as lucky as I am. xxxxxxxxx

mara, when leo was little and he payed me maintenance, i was told that if he refused to pay then they would take it streight from his wages...is this not a possibility anymore?? xxx