oooh your poor ladies with step kids - seeing your partners money going towards them while you struggle.
It's shocking - have you all tried to get the maintenance payments reviewed given your new circumstances it seems a bit ridiculous doesn't it.

Debs I agree I dont think the Dad should contribute towards the rent... but the everyday costs of having a child. The mum would have to rent somewhere whether with or without the child.

Maybe we should send this thread to the government and see what a mess it really is!

Jade wrote:

oooh your poor ladies with step kids - seeing your partners money going towards them while you struggle.
It's shocking - have you all tried to get the maintenance payments reviewed given your new circumstances it seems a bit ridiculous doesn't it.

Debs I agree I dont think the Dad should contribute towards the rent... but the everyday costs of having a child. The mum would have to rent somewhere whether with or without the child.

Maybe we should send this thread to the government and see what a mess it really is!

I'm not going to very popular but if my ex got a new wife and new kid I'd be pretty pissed of if it was reviewed and I got less. Men to be aware that kids cost money and think very carfully about wether they can afford more kids when they already struggle to pay for existing kids, just because the kids are to an ex or a one night stand doesn't make those kids amy less important or cheaper to care for.

My ex gives me £180 per month, it really doesn't go far. £30 per week dinner money, £5 per week pocket money, 25 per month on rugby and footy subs. The isn't much left towards food and clothes. Fortunatly my oh provides nice holidays and birthday, christmas presents etc.

So my answer is if they're man enough to father a child they should be prepared to finance them too

Debs, I agree that no the non resident parent should not have to pay towards the bills (rent/mortgage), like you say these costs wouldnt reduce if the child wasnt there. For example if Tia came and lived with us and her mum paid us child maintenance, we would not use it to go towards our mortgage, it would purely be to clothe and feed her. x

BabyMilly wrote:

I'm not going to very popular but if my ex got a new wife and new kid I'd be pretty pissed of if it was reviewed and I got less. Men to be aware that kids cost money and think very carfully about wether they can afford more kids when they already struggle to pay for existing kids, just because the kids are to an ex or a one night stand doesn't make those kids amy less important or cheaper to care for.

My ex gives me £180 per month, it really doesn't go far. £30 per week dinner money, £5 per week pocket money, 25 per month on rugby and footy subs. The isn't much left towards food and clothes. Fortunatly my oh provides nice holidays and birthday, christmas presents etc.

So my answer is if they're man enough to father a child they should be prepared to finance them too

Well in mine/Simon's case unfortunately yes it was a drunken one night stand, Simon was young and stupid (wouldnt change it for the world now though), is what your saying is that he should not have had more children? So he would be 'punished' for life because of one night, however the mother, who lives on benefits and doesnt get off her arse to get a job (Tia is 13 now) can go on to have more children and continue to claim benefits etc?? We are lucky in that we have a lovely home that we own, and 2 nice cars - but we've worked hard for them, I think it's very unfair to suggest that men shouldn't have any more children if they are struggling, if thats the case a hell of a lot of people 'shouldn't' have children

Penny in many ways I agree with you. I completely understand that accidents happen and fair play to your OH Susan, he stepped up to the mark in more ways than one and is a shining example. I do agree though that financial concerns should be a reason to limit the amount of children you father or mother.

Susan, I'm not having a go at you and Simon personally but just general that men need to take responsibilty and be aware that whether it's a one night stand or not all kids are worthy of their fathers financial support.

Mothers in benefits is a whole different debate, but if dads didn't contribute it would just be the tax payers footing the bill.

BabyMilly wrote:

Mothers in benefits is a whole different debate, but if dads didn't contribute it would just be the tax payers footing the bill.

I hate this sentence when used to talk about people on benefits. I dont see that you or anyone else is footing the bill for me and my kids because i am on benefits and dont get child maintenance. I have paid into the system for years and have had some very unfortunate things happen in my life. I am not in a position to get a job now due to these circumstances and unfortunately have to rely on state handouts for the foreseeable future, and believe me if i had a choice this would not be the case, and let me assure you, with 4 children to feed and clothe and bills to pay it is not the easy option!

Its easy to generalise about people on benefits until you are in that situation, we just assume we are footing the bill!

Mara, like I said mothers on benefits are whole different debate. I have a 20 year old and was a single mother on benefits for many years (til she went to school) I never received a penny maintainance from her dad nor did she ever receive a birthday present or Xmas present from him or his family. The reason I said it's a whole different debate is because there are so many sides to this and many cases it due to wankers who father kids then feck off leaving the mothers to it!

I know you and your kids have been through hell, but you're not the first to have had a shit time!

BabyMilly wrote:

I know you and your kids have been through hell, but you're not the first to have had a shit time!

I am quite aware of this thank you for pointing that out!!
I am joining this debate with my point of view from my own experiences. My point is why should single mothers on benefits be a whole other debate? Do WE not deserve to be treat the same as other people because the tax payers are footing our bill???
I dont see what difference it makes to the debate if you are on benefits or not! Yes if a father pays you lose benefits and if they dont the you get benefits! Children have to eat one way or another!!!!!!

I am very offended by this!!

Mara, Just to explain my other comment (not that I have to)it is the tax payer footing the bill and when fathers contribute this amount is deducted from the income support, hence my comment that if they don't pay it is the tax payer footing the whole bill! -

Wasn't this about whether fathers sHould pay maintainance.

Mmmmm and now you are a tax payer you have a problem with this but when you were on benefits you didnt??
Double standards?

Lol mara

I never said I had a problem with single mothers never have never will!
I did say and I repeat - if blokes don't pay maintaince then the tax payer (yes that's me) pay the whole lot!

So mara apart from using the term mothers on benefits, what exactly is it that offended you about by opinion?

I know Mara will speak for herself, but I think your comment "you're not the first to have had a shit time" was slightly tactless and I can see why Mara feels offended

I just want to confirm i am not offended by your opinion, you are entitled to it, what i am offended by was your comment
"you're not the first to have had a shit time"

It was very bitchy and nasty and totally uncalled for. You have surprised me, i never thought you were such a thoughtless bitchy person!!

BabyMilly wrote:

Mothers in benefits is a whole different debate, but if dads didn't contribute it would just be the tax payers footing the bill.

Baby milly, perhaps you could have phrased that a little differently then ,
if some mothers are on benefits and the dad doesnt pay then we have to foot the bill for him might have been better!

without the need to mention mothers on benefit as a whole different debate! i took that in a different context than you say you meant

Mara, why didn't you say that was what offended you? I'm sorry that that did offend you, it was never meant to. I felt you were attackig me for saying mothers on benefits was whole different debate (i did literally mean that it's a different debate).

I also take offence for being called thoughtless, I can assure you that I'm not!

I do stand by my opinions though.

BabyMilly wrote:

I'm not going to very popular but if my ex got a new wife and new kid I'd be pretty pissed of if it was reviewed and I got less.

When a man has another child the figure comes down automatically - it doesn't need a review - it's been like that for a long time.

BabyMilly wrote:

Men to be aware that kids cost money and think very carfully about wether they can afford more kids when they already struggle to pay for existing kids, just because the kids are to an ex or a one night stand doesn't make those kids amy less important or cheaper to care for.

My OH is/was perfectly aware that children cost money. We don't struggle because we had kids we struggle because I was made redundant after my mat leave. Circumstances change - I am now not in a position to return to work as OH has had to change his position to get more money to support us, however this now means he works earlys/evening/nights/weekends etc so for me to go back into a similar role I was made redundant from would actually cost us money after childcare.

BabyMilly wrote:

My ex gives me £180 per month, it really doesn't go far. £30 per week dinner money, £5 per week pocket money, 25 per month on rugby and footy subs. The isn't much left towards food and clothes. Fortunatly my oh provides nice holidays and birthday, christmas presents etc.

With all due respect Pen - it's not your ex's sole responsibility to pay for these things. If he gives you £180 a month this should be at least met by you - therefore taking the figure to £360 - I would say this is more than enough to feed and cloth a child per months as well as extras like pocket money and rugby etc. Holidays, birthdays and christmas are things that shouldn't be taken from maintenance anyway so that is irrelevant - your ex is responsible for buying his own gifts and if he wanted to take him away on holiday I'm sure you wouldn't object.

BabyMilly wrote:

So my answer is if they're man enough to father a child they should be prepared to finance them too

I agree they should support them - would never say any different. However my bug bare is with the way the figure is worked out. They don't take into account the fact that my OH was lumbered with all of her debts when they split and that he left with nothing and had to build up a whole new life from scratch. They just see income after tax and give you a figure.

xx

You should stand by your opinions as i stand by mine.

I just dont understand why mothers on benefits are relevant to this debate, fathers should pay maintenance regardless of whether they are on benefits or not, and women should not be penalised for being on benefits.

If you want to start a debate on mothers on benefits, then start a new thread, but you have to expect to get backlash for that type of thread!

Debs wrote:

When a man has another child the figure comes down automatically - it doesn't need a review - it's been like that for a long time.

My OH still pays the same as he did before Ollie arrived?

I also agree about them not taking it to consideration what the man pays. At the moment OH pays all the bills and is skint as, his ex gets benefit after benefit and pays F all.

Also winds me up that his ex thinks that because he works he is rolling in it! She doesn't seem to realise that we actually pay our own bills

Well this debate went off on a tangent

My view is that if 2 people create a child then both parties should take responsibility for that child and contribute financially to their upbringing. That said I can see that the current system is a pile of crap because absent fathers who contribute nothing to their children's lives are getting off without paying a penny whereas good dads are being penalised beyond what anyone could consider reasonable. The second part is particularly true when the mother is not behaving fairly.

I have say though I do agree with the point that your ability to financially support your children should be a consideration before you have them. Obviously if your circumstances change once you have children then that's a different case and you can only do your best for your family.

Deb

I know my child is not my ex's sole responsibity, I can assure you I contribute financially I was just answering the what the money goes towards. My oh has never paid towards my mortgage or bills etc it all goes towards those things I mentioned.

Lita - has he made the CSA aware that you have Ollie now because it should come down hun (although maybe it depends at what rate you pay in the first place? ), OHs came down when we had Thomas (£11 a week) and again when we had Hannah (another £4 a week) but then he does pay quite a lot in the first place.

xx

I thought they would automatically see that he has another child now? Maybe not then! He pays £33.14 a week and has them every weekend.

BabyMilly wrote:

Deb

I know my child is not my ex's sole responsibity, I can assure you I contribute financially I was just answering the what the money goes towards. My oh has never paid towards my mortgage or bills etc it all goes towards those things I mentioned.

I understand that hun - I have no doubt you contribute over and above but what confused me was that you said there was not much left for clothes etc after what you quoted but that hadnt taken into account your portion.

And apart from that - £30 a week on dinner money??? - is that the going rate these days


xx

mara wrote:

You should stand by your opinions as i stand by mine.

I just dont understand why mothers on benefits are relevant to this debate, fathers should pay maintenance regardless of whether they are on benefits or not, and women should not be penalised for being on benefits.

If you want to start a debate on mothers on benefits, then start a new thread, but you have to expect to get backlash for that type of thread!

I was responding to another post when I mentioned mothers on benefits, I didn't actually bring mothers on benefits into this and i agree it's nothing to do with fathers paying maintainance but it was relavent in that particular post.

I've no intention of starting a post on mothers on benefits!

I'm Not complaining about backlash! I wouldn't be posting in debates with my honest opinions if I couldn't take it!