Why does it need to be the minimum?

Chris, I don't doubt that it is difficult for you too, but anyone whose children are getting free school meals is pretty short of money. In the education world the number of children in a school in receipt of free school meals is an indicator of the level of poverty in the school population.

Best wishes,
Sadie

Hi, what i find difficult in all of this is the fact that absent fathers use the CSA payments as a tool in my experience, all the while my ex didnt pay (he abandoned my son for 3 years we heard nothing from him & didnt know of his whereabouts) the minute he started to make inroads into taking out a case for contact he strangely when questioned by my barrister in court dcided he would now pay after years of my fighting for CSA. I have raised my two children on my own & yes we all do need a huge pat on the back for the daily grind & pressure this system puts us through & continues to do so.My x was last week given access to my son after abandoning him for 7 years, 3 of those years were my sons first 3 years on this planet, the rest of the time weve spent in & out of court at his behest BITTER damn right, he very nearly destroyed us, it was my sons 7th bday in June, his Father didnt remember it !! what a suprise !! is this a caring & loving Father ? mm i think not !!The need for school uniform is looming of course he dosent want to buy it, he wants to cherry pick the days he sees my son, i want to counter that with days that suit us better, (we were not given any choice in court) my x now has a very well paid job our CSA payments have not increased despite my calling the CSA, apparently my x does not complete the forms !! helpful huh Why are we having to constantly pick up the slack for these absent insignificant others ? GRRRRR

sexysadie wrote:

Chris, I don't doubt that it is difficult for you too, but anyone whose children are getting free school meals is pretty short of money. In the education world the number of children in a school in receipt of free school meals is an indicator of the level of poverty in the school population.

Best wishes,
Sadie

Free school meals are available to a great many children these days on account of the PWC being in receipt of Income Support.
Whilst Income support is only £65.45 pw my ex gets a very substantial amount of Child Tax Credit(approx £125 pw) and of course Child Benefit(£33.70 pw for 2 children) that all parents receive regardless of income. This is over £220pw in her hand, when you take into account the fact she doesn't have to pay rent or council tax and the kids spend more than 52 days a year with me she is better off than when she was dependent on my modest wage.
Incidentally i am no longer in work due to a disability and am delighted the kids are not missing out due to my circumstances.

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.

Priorities have to be different for those with the majority of care for the children.

I could not try for a job I really wanted as I couldn't sort out reliable child care. So, I'm "stuck" as things are.

To be fair, I do have a not very supportive ex (would I call him The Git otherwise?).

I plod on.

Yes, I do have a grant for two of my children in high school. However, I have two in sixth form who do not have a grant. I'm having to work out how to fork out £85 minimum for the new compulsory jumper and a tie (my son is in second years 6).
Just having to pay £60 for a puncture hasn't helped!

This is where a fair and reasonble "other" parent would want to help (in my books anyway - I've not experienced this)

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 haven't seen any studies myself but perhaps the statistic simply means that woman are inclined to marry men who are richer and on divorce eventually return to a pre-marriage economic level?

Anyway, amongst fathers I suggest a correlation between those who pay the minimum and those who feel excluded as parents. Which is understandable. Why make sacrifices if you feel no emotional investment. Why pay money to a woman you have grown to despise. Am not saying that all mothers are the author of their own misfortune, but some surely are.

So hit the woman hard and stuff the children.

Ah, I see.