Why does it need to be the minimum?

Have read the research and yes, there is a gender pay gap, kids are expensive, being a resident parent reduces your earning capacity. I thank you for the links to the informative articles.

jamais wrote:

I would feel an emotional investment in my children whether I saw them or not - I find that a strange connection to make tbh.

/quote]

With respect without facing such circumstances you don't really know. Some questions can't be answered hyperthetically.


jamais wrote:

check out the statistic that only 31% of NRP fathers contribute maintenance towards their children's upkeep.
?

Not sure about this one. Are you saying that nearly 70% of NRP's evade child maintenance? The link you provide is a little dated, I think the introduction of the CSA changed things.

jamais wrote:

I am not sure why you brought contact into a discussion about CM anyway?

Because it is relevant.

jamais wrote:

study after study shows that mothers (who in general are PWC) are far worse off financially than fathers (who in general are NRP's)following a divorce. Mothers who work are better off than those who don't but they never catch up with father's financially, nor with their income level during the marriage (clearly there are a range of experiences making up this average) and this is not evidence of women fleecing men either in marriage or during divorce.

Women who don't have children are far less worse off after divorce or if they never marry: having and being the primary carer for children is what substantially disadvantages women economically. There are of course non-economic upsides to this, and men who would gladly share residence 50/50 or be the PWC, and in those situations the system needs adjusting to be more responsive to the fact that the traditional roles are less and less fixed now, and fathers are thankfully having and able to have far more of an equal role in their children's upbringing (both within and outside of a traditional married unit) .

But the fact remains that NRP's have greater flexibility in the workplace and more opportunities to both increase their income (by e.g. changing jobs/increasing hours)and decrease their outgoings (e.g. I can sit without the heating on in any temperature, but I have to maintain a minimum temp in my children's rooms).

There are, of course, PWCs who abuse their position, however, the "pay per view" attitude is not limited to PWCs: many NRPs evidence holding that view here too, although this is absolutely NOT what the OP was talking about so I don't understand why it was brought in to the discussion.

Chris, your ex has 220 per week to feed, clothe, warm, water, light, wash, shoe, de-nit etc; and whilst there are many who do it on less, she could hardly be classed as rolling in it, nor is that money coming from your pocket.

15-25% of of net income still leaves 75-85% of net income for the NRP entirely for themselves. Tax credits for parents were introduced because so many were below the poverty line, and a disproportionate percentage of those were single parents with the majority care for their children, not because they were lazy but because their opportunities for employment were severely limited.

---

I don't need any lessons in limited opportunities thanks. I mentioned in my previous post that i had lost my job due to a disability and in fact my employment prospects with stuff all qualifications and a muscle wasting disease are more than a little "limited", especially with mass unemployment a factor.

I totally agree that the NRP (be it the mother or father) should take financial & emotional responsibilty for their children.

I also know that there are PWCs that dont take the mick from the NRP too.

Unfortunately in that is not the case for me. My partners ex demands everything. My partner takes them on holiday, always pays the CSA and provides whatever they need for school etc etc...Dont get me wrong, I believe he should be providing for them, but not to the extent that the Ex buys nothing! She is in receipt of benefits is working and has her boyfriend living with her. On paper, she is hugely better off than we are!

I guess what really ticks me off though, is while he providing for his two boys, our daughter only has me (may as well be a single parent!), because he has no spare cash for her.

The system as it stands sucks! I believe that benefits should only benefit those who truly need it. I dont see why I should be working to support those who cant be bothered.

Sorry rant over!

At the end of the day, there are those who want to provide and those who dont.

Good luck to those decent mothers and fathers out there x

I try really, really hard, to NOT take what someone is saying either personally or the worst possible way.

chris, I was in no way criticizing you specifically with this post, I noted your current circumstances: the title of this thread refers to those who pay only the minimum CSA amount, not to those who can't pay any and therefore rightly don't have to due to circumstances beyond their control (disability etc), I am not sure where in my post you could have generated that idea from?

Nor enuf, does it refer to NRP's like your partner who provide more than the bare minimum, again I would be very surprised if there was any suggestion in anything that I have written that I think that way, because, I don't. Have you spoken to him about the detrimental effects this is having upon your daughter, after-all, his ex may demand, but it is him who capitulates and him who has the responsibility for all 3 children.



and Zonked, no, the pointing out that only 31% of NRPs pay CM was not suggesting that nearly 70% of NRPs evade/avoid paying, it's easy to read a tone into something if one is already defensive.

That entire post was detailing the evidence that PWCs are worse off than NRPs financially following divorce and that therefore a suggestion that if NRPs are struggling to see their children because of finances, CSA payments are minimised, taking money away from the PWC to support the NRP is illogical, the most logical solution would be to support the NRP in earning additional income/decreasing existing outgoings, given that they are more flexible, especially as a healthy proportion of NRPs pay no CM at all. I should have pointed that out.

zonked wrote:

but I'm inclined to think that if a NRP is to maintain a relationship with their kids they need money to buy them things/take them out/ afford transport. Minimising CSA payments will often be the most contructive and supportive thing to do.

zonked wrote:

With respect without facing such circumstances you don't really know. Some questions can't be answered hyperthetically. [/b]

Point taken, although it doesn’t make it right or fair, the money is for the children not the PWC, whether you despise the PWC/NRP or not should be irrelevant.

I was not seeking to turn this thread into a "tar them all with the same brush" or gender-related or NRPs vs PWCs argument. Although it was probably naive to imagine that it wouldn't start to degenerate.

To the OP:
My personal experience is that my ex paid less than the CSA rates on half of his income, and none at all on the other half of his income, and then stopped paying that, I only get anything because I knock it off the money I send him to cover the mortgage each month.

He cannot get his head round the fact that I am still paying the full mortgage, just minus his very low CM contributions, and continuously threatens that he will no longer be able to make the payments on it, and that the children and I will therefore lose our home. He buys them toys and chocolate on an ad hoc basis, but I provide everything else, including the venue for the contact, so yes, for some it is the bare minimum that they can get away with. The fact that I earn a decent wage means that we are not dependent on his contributions to get by, and I thank my lucky stars for that.

Sorry to the OP, I’ll bow out now to stop it going any further.

Why have you mentioned me by name when replying to another member if you are not directing any of it at me?

"Chris, your ex has 220 per week to feed, clothe, warm, water, light, wash, shoe, de-nit etc; and whilst there are many who do it on less, she could hardly be classed as rolling in it, nor is that money coming from your pocket."

I've just had the pleasure of forking out £120 for a sixth form compulsory uniform for my daughter. No grant (which is fine)

While I am moaning, her father has given a £15 itune card. Personally, £60 should have been offered.

More chance of pigs flying by in my case, however.

Minimum does not cover things the children need.

Some, I know have absolutely no choice choice, and do their Absolute utmost for their children.

It drives me mad.

Avoidance of covering necessary expenses is shameful. Step-parents marry someone who has children, and should want to see their step-children doing ok too...

Again, ideal world.

I have to learn to do without the £22 now a month, as he's going to become a student.

The children will still need things, which I'll budget hard to make sure they get.

Being in denial that children have needs is a disgrace, in my case - and I'm for from being the only one.