Child support - should they be made to pay?

[ShanandBoc]

This came up on a friends facebook today and i thought it might be an interesting topic for discussion. People posted some valid points

There are a few different scenarios so i have listed some below. How do you feel about them?

1. A father / mother that refuses to pay child support. He/ she may or may not see his kids (out of choice). Here (in Aus) they can be made to pay it takes legal action and whole lot of rigmarole to do so,and what they are required to pay is pretty miserable.

- I have a friend and the father of her children owes her thousands in child support. My sisters ex husband has put his business in his new wifes name so it looks like he earns no money ans gets away with paying support. He never really paid it anyway.

2. If a parent refuses to let the other parent see the children for selfish reasons (ie - a mother is bitter about their break up etc), should they still have to pay child support?

3. If one parent is unfit to have the child in their care (abusive, criminal, drug addict etc) should that unfit parent still have to pay child support?

Debate

 

[tallybee]

This topic is very pertinent in mine and my family's life, so I will put down the way I see it.

Both parents are equally responsible for creating a life.

If you don't wish to create a life, use contraception. 'She said she was on the pill' or similar is no excuse. If not sure, use rubber.

HOWEVER - we should all be aware that contraception is NOT 100%, sometimes it fails. (I know this first hand; I was on the Pill when my son was conceived). In these instances, BOTH parents are still responsible for creating that life - they did both choose to have sex after all.

I see no reason why a non-resident parent should NOT be responsible for child support. They created the life, so why should they not be responsible? Access, or lack of, for whatever reason, is not an excuse. A child doesn't suddenly cost nothing to raise because of access issues.

Those who choose not to see their child are already failing that child in that way, so why should they abandon them financially as well?

Those who say that the resident parent is 'bitterly using the child as a weapon, not allowing access' are often twisted individuals who have shot themselves in the foot with their own unreasonable behaviour.

Those who are unfit (for whatever reason) to look after their own children are also failing them in this way and should be made to take some responsibility; paying towards their upkeep would be an obvious thing to do.

So all excuses aside (believe me, I've heard plenty of them, and been accused of plenty of things along the way),
Children are not just little prizes that can be discarded because irresponsible people can't be bothered. Those responsible for making them need to follow through on that responsibility - when one of those 'parents' is not there for WHATEVER reason, they need to get their head out of their arse and support the upbringing of the lives they have created. Otherwise it's the children that lose out, and more often than not have to be supported by the rest of society.

OP - the person you mention who has transferred all his assets to his wife to avoid paying for his own children is pathetic. Those children need to be fed and clothed and he's just being selfish and disgusting in refusing to take responsibility. HOWEVER having also seen first hand how greedy some divorce settlements can get and how little an ex husband can be left with to live on after paying the ex each month, I can totally see why some may do it.

The law is completely inadequate for dealing with cases like this.

Sorry if I have rambled - irresponsible people with excuses just grate on me.

 

[pinklightbulb]

My views are this. If the mother denies access, why should she get anything from the father? She won't allow him to see his children, yet she wants his money? Don't think so sweetheart lol. Ahhh this is a horrible topic for me as this is the situation my OH is in and as a result hasn't seen his son in 3 years yet still pays 18% of his wage to her before tax. Sorry if I have offended anyone with this view but I truly despise mothers who keep the father from seeing the kids to be spiteful and vindictive. She doesn't want him around? Fine. Then she can raise-- and pay for-- the child on her own.

 

[Laura2919]

This is my view. Whether or not you see your child you still created a baby so you should pay. There are many reasons why a mother denies access and a child still needs all the things it needs with or without a mother or father.
The problem is where the money goes. It shouldnt be given directly to the mother especially if she is stopping the father from seeing the child or vice versa it should be put away for when the child is older or should be given to somebody that the child can go to if the child needs something.
Thats easier said than done though and they dont have enough staff to keep tabs on every single case that goes through.

 

[Midnight_Fairy]

I have thought long and hard about this. I know people struggle to claim and I am sorry to hear that. My sons "dad" was paying £50 a week. I cancelled it. I dont want his money. I dont know what people think about that.

 

[Midnight_Fairy]

My views are this. If the mother denies access, why should she get anything from the father? She won't allow him to see his children, yet she wants his money? Don't think so sweetheart lol. Ahhh this is a horrible topic for me as this is the situation my OH is in and as a result hasn't seen his son in 3 years yet still pays 18% of his wage to her before tax. Sorry if I have offended anyone with this view but I truly despise mothers who keep the father from seeing the kids to be spiteful and vindictive. She doesn't want him around? Fine. Then she can raise-- and pay for-- the child on her own.

well this is why I cancelled mine. I didn't actually receive anything but lately he started paying so I cancelled it. He is not in our life and I dont need his money, it would be nice but not from him LOL. I know not everyone is as fortunate though to be able to not afford it.

 

[Serene123]

My mum never got a penny off my dad when he left and she didn't want it. He was a complete knob head. End of story

 

[AppleBlossom]

In my opinion, if you create a life you should be responsible for that life. It's up to you whether you want to see the child. But you should still pay support. I read stories all the time about guys who go round getting girl after girl pregnant without even considering the consequences. If the mother denies access for no good reason (such as just out of spite) then no, I don't think they should be given anything from the father. But in all other circumstances the "absent" parent should still pay some support for the baby they created

 

[pinklightbulb]

My views are this. If the mother denies access, why should she get anything from the father? She won't allow him to see his children, yet she wants his money? Don't think so sweetheart lol. Ahhh this is a horrible topic for me as this is the situation my OH is in and as a result hasn't seen his son in 3 years yet still pays 18% of his wage to her before tax. Sorry if I have offended anyone with this view but I truly despise mothers who keep the father from seeing the kids to be spiteful and vindictive. She doesn't want him around? Fine. Then she can raise-- and pay for-- the child on her own.

well this is why I cancelled mine. I didn't actually receive anything but lately he started paying so I cancelled it. He is not in our life and I dont need his money, it would be nice but not from him LOL. I know not everyone is as fortunate though to be able to not afford it.

Some men don't deserve anything and I can see that. I think things should be assessed on a case by case basis, not by one-size-fits-all. Why should my OH's ex get a cent out of him when she denied him access because she couldn't afford drugs and he wouldn't pay more than what he was required to in C.S.?
Laughable. He still pays. He knows none of it goes on his son and so do I as I was best friends with the mother for a long time before I met him. But he pays and has never tried to get out of it. I don't think he should have to and neither does he but that is the law, as biased against fathers as a whole as it is.

 

[tallybee]

My views are this. If the mother denies access, why should she get anything from the father? She won't allow him to see his children, yet she wants his money? Don't think so sweetheart lol. Ahhh this is a horrible topic for me as this is the situation my OH is in and as a result hasn't seen his son in 3 years yet still pays 18% of his wage to her before tax. Sorry if I have offended anyone with this view but I truly despise mothers who keep the father from seeing the kids to be spiteful and vindictive. She doesn't want him around? Fine. Then she can raise-- and pay for-- the child on her own.

He still helped create those children and should support them. Goodness knows, I know how it feels to be out of pocket because of OH paying high sums of maintenance to his ex, and she is a twisted and bitter woman too. But the fact remains, maintenance payments are not payments in return for visitation. They are payments for the upkeep of children he has created.

I also know what it's like to be lied about and receive literally NO support. Without intending to be offensive in any way, it is very difficult to know who caused what in a relationship breakup, and goodness knows there are plenty of men out there who pull the 'but she's bitter and has stopped me seeing the children' card, when in actual fact their behaviour has been rather less than perfect.

Not seeing a child is no excuse for binning your responsibilities to them. Those children will grow up and make up their own minds, and those who have washed their hands of them will have to live with that long beyond the time of any dispute with their ex.

 

[pinklightbulb]

My views are this. If the mother denies access, why should she get anything from the father? She won't allow him to see his children, yet she wants his money? Don't think so sweetheart lol. Ahhh this is a horrible topic for me as this is the situation my OH is in and as a result hasn't seen his son in 3 years yet still pays 18% of his wage to her before tax. Sorry if I have offended anyone with this view but I truly despise mothers who keep the father from seeing the kids to be spiteful and vindictive. She doesn't want him around? Fine. Then she can raise-- and pay for-- the child on her own.

He still helped create those children and should support them. Goodness knows, I know how it feels to be out of pocket because of OH paying high sums of maintenance to his ex, and she is a twisted and bitter woman too. But the fact remains, maintenance payments are not payments in return for visitation. They are payments for the upkeep of children he has created.

I also know what it's like to be lied about and receive literally NO support. Without intending to be offensive in any way, it is very difficult to know who caused what in a relationship breakup, and goodness knows there are plenty of men out there who pull the 'but she's bitter and has stopped me seeing the children' card, when in actual fact their behaviour has been rather less than perfect.

Not seeing a child is no excuse for binning your responsibilities to them. Those children will grow up and make up their own minds, and those who have washed their hands of them will have to live with that long beyond the time of any dispute with their ex.

I do know what caused their breakup hun, I was there And I literally mean I was there the whole time, for three years, as I lived first with the mother and then my OH. She was a junkie who removed access every time OH didn't pay more than what he was required to. She bragged about it to me every time she 'stuck it up him.' Needless to say I was on my OH's side--and when he became my OH, which the mother set up as she wanted him off her back and I was the perfect distraction-- I was horrified by what lengths she went to.
She has been caught on camera smoking crack in the middle of a big city, which was shown to the police when OH tried to get custody of their son. She has numerous drug convictions. Yet they still said he got nothing. Fair? I think not. She gets his money to spend on drugs? Even more unfair. I know without a doubt that none of that money goes on their son's upkeep.
If the father must contribute, even in those circumstances, would vouchers not be suitable instead? That way it can be ensured the child is benefiting from the money, as they are supposed to, and the mother is not spending it solely on herself like in this case.
Again sorry if I come off heartless to mothers who receive nothing and deserve to. They are not the mothers I am angry at right now.

 

[ShanandBoc]

This topic is very pertinent in mine and my family's life, so I will put down the way I see it.

Both parents are equally responsible for creating a life.

If you don't wish to create a life, use contraception. 'She said she was on the pill' or similar is no excuse. If not sure, use rubber.

HOWEVER - we should all be aware that contraception is NOT 100%, sometimes it fails. (I know this first hand; I was on the Pill when my son was conceived). In these instances, BOTH parents are still responsible for creating that life - they did both choose to have sex after all.

I see no reason why a non-resident parent should NOT be responsible for child support. They created the life, so why should they not be responsible? Access, or lack of, for whatever reason, is not an excuse. A child doesn't suddenly cost nothing to raise because of access issues.

Those who choose not to see their child are already failing that child in that way, so why should they abandon them financially as well?

Those who say that the resident parent is 'bitterly using the child as a weapon, not allowing access' are often twisted individuals who have shot themselves in the foot with their own unreasonable behaviour.

Those who are unfit (for whatever reason) to look after their own children are also failing them in this way and should be made to take some responsibility; paying towards their upkeep would be an obvious thing to do.

So all excuses aside (believe me, I've heard plenty of them, and been accused of plenty of things along the way),
Children are not just little prizes that can be discarded because irresponsible people can't be bothered. Those responsible for making them need to follow through on that responsibility - when one of those 'parents' is not there for WHATEVER reason, they need to get their head out of their arse and support the upbringing of the lives they have created. Otherwise it's the children that lose out, and more often than not have to be supported by the rest of society.

OP - the person you mention who has transferred all his assets to his wife to avoid paying for his own children is pathetic. Those children need to be fed and clothed and he's just being selfish and disgusting in refusing to take responsibility. HOWEVER having also seen first hand how greedy some divorce settlements can get and how little an ex husband can be left with to live on after paying the ex each month, I can totally see why some may do it.

The law is completely inadequate for dealing with cases like this.

Sorry if I have rambled - irresponsible people with excuses just grate on me.

Great post, i agree 100% with everything u have said

 

[ShanandBoc]

My views are this. If the mother denies access, why should she get anything from the father? She won't allow him to see his children, yet she wants his money? Don't think so sweetheart lol. Ahhh this is a horrible topic for me as this is the situation my OH is in and as a result hasn't seen his son in 3 years yet still pays 18% of his wage to her before tax. Sorry if I have offended anyone with this view but I truly despise mothers who keep the father from seeing the kids to be spiteful and vindictive. She doesn't want him around? Fine. Then she can raise-- and pay for-- the child on her own.

He still helped create those children and should support them. Goodness knows, I know how it feels to be out of pocket because of OH paying high sums of maintenance to his ex, and she is a twisted and bitter woman too. But the fact remains, maintenance payments are not payments in return for visitation. They are payments for the upkeep of children he has created.

I also know what it's like to be lied about and receive literally NO support. Without intending to be offensive in any way, it is very difficult to know who caused what in a relationship breakup, and goodness knows there are plenty of men out there who pull the 'but she's bitter and has stopped me seeing the children' card, when in actual fact their behaviour has been rather less than perfect.

Not seeing a child is no excuse for binning your responsibilities to them. Those children will grow up and make up their own minds, and those who have washed their hands of them will have to live with that long beyond the time of any dispute with their ex.

I do know what caused their breakup hun, I was there And I literally mean I was there the whole time, for three years, as I lived first with the mother and then my OH. She was a junkie who removed access every time OH didn't pay more than what he was required to. She bragged about it to me every time she 'stuck it up him.' Needless to say I was on my OH's side--and when he became my OH, which the mother set up as she wanted him off her back and I was the perfect distraction-- I was horrified by what lengths she went to.
She has been caught on camera smoking crack in the middle of a big city, which was shown to the police when OH tried to get custody of their son. She has numerous drug convictions. Yet they still said he got nothing. Fair? I think not. She gets his money to spend on drugs? Even more unfair. I know without a doubt that none of that money goes on their son's upkeep.
If the father must contribute, even in those circumstances, would vouchers not be suitable instead? That way it can be ensured the child is benefiting from the money, as they are supposed to, and the mother is not spending it solely on herself like in this case.
Again sorry if I come off heartless to mothers who receive nothing and deserve to. They are not the mothers I am angry at right now.

I see what u are saying and i agree here. At the end of the day none of it is the childs fault so why should they miss out, but i think vouchers are a great idea, that way you know where the money is going. In some circumstances this would be needed and is in the childs best interest

 

[Nibblenic]

I think that if you create life you re financially responsible for that life until they are an adult and can pay thier own way in society.

I dont think acess should be a factor I actually think men should pay much more and subsidise the mother especially in the early year when working is expesive and difficult

 

[tallybee]

My views are this. If the mother denies access, why should she get anything from the father? She won't allow him to see his children, yet she wants his money? Don't think so sweetheart lol. Ahhh this is a horrible topic for me as this is the situation my OH is in and as a result hasn't seen his son in 3 years yet still pays 18% of his wage to her before tax. Sorry if I have offended anyone with this view but I truly despise mothers who keep the father from seeing the kids to be spiteful and vindictive. She doesn't want him around? Fine. Then she can raise-- and pay for-- the child on her own.

He still helped create those children and should support them. Goodness knows, I know how it feels to be out of pocket because of OH paying high sums of maintenance to his ex, and she is a twisted and bitter woman too. But the fact remains, maintenance payments are not payments in return for visitation. They are payments for the upkeep of children he has created.

I also know what it's like to be lied about and receive literally NO support. Without intending to be offensive in any way, it is very difficult to know who caused what in a relationship breakup, and goodness knows there are plenty of men out there who pull the 'but she's bitter and has stopped me seeing the children' card, when in actual fact their behaviour has been rather less than perfect.

Not seeing a child is no excuse for binning your responsibilities to them. Those children will grow up and make up their own minds, and those who have washed their hands of them will have to live with that long beyond the time of any dispute with their ex.

I do know what caused their breakup hun, I was there And I literally mean I was there the whole time, for three years, as I lived first with the mother and then my OH. She was a junkie who removed access every time OH didn't pay more than what he was required to. She bragged about it to me every time she 'stuck it up him.' Needless to say I was on my OH's side--and when he became my OH, which the mother set up as she wanted him off her back and I was the perfect distraction-- I was horrified by what lengths she went to.
She has been caught on camera smoking crack in the middle of a big city, which was shown to the police when OH tried to get custody of their son. She has numerous drug convictions. Yet they still said he got nothing. Fair? I think not. She gets his money to spend on drugs? Even more unfair. I know without a doubt that none of that money goes on their son's upkeep.
If the father must contribute, even in those circumstances, would vouchers not be suitable instead? That way it can be ensured the child is benefiting from the money, as they are supposed to, and the mother is not spending it solely on herself like in this case.
Again sorry if I come off heartless to mothers who receive nothing and deserve to. They are not the mothers I am angry at right now.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but why in the name of goodness has she got custody in any case if she's a convicted druggie? Surely the child should not be living with that, and SHE should be paying support

 

[pinklightbulb]

Tallybee: Because the child is on the autism spectrum and OH had such sporadic access, plus MOB's sob story to the courts worked about how hard it was looking after their son (she hardly did at all, it was ME when I lived with her, and her Mum the rest of the time she could palm him off, even her new BF that son barely knew.)
In short, MOB insisted it was more detrimental to him that he live with OH, who he didn't see much, as it would traumatize him. She stayed off drugs long enough to get a clear test, was granted full custody and proceeded to go right back to her old ways as soon as she'd won the case. Who paid for her side to be put across? The taxpayers.
Who paid for my OH? He did, and then he ran out of money after 5 years of fighting her for any concrete access at all, full, partial, weekend, anything he could get. He ran out of money and had nothing left to take her back with. He wasn't eligible for Legal Aid as he earned too much, so he had to let it go and accept that some battles just cannot be won as the law is too biased in favour of the mother.
We all know mothers who have been on hard drugs can get their kids back if they do this and that. Well, that is what MOB did, and when she knew OH had no money left, just went back to her usual tricks, spat it when he had none to give HER, and all access was stopped.
I fully support the voucher idea, and the case-by-case idea I said before. Not every case is black and white, this was definitely wasn't, I wouldn't have believed it was so biased either if I didn't see it myself. At least with vouchers as Shan said, you can KNOW that child is getting food, power being put on, getting clothed. When you give untrustworthy mothers cash money you can't be. Mothers who really want the money for their children would have nothing to hide and would gladly accept vouchers that could be used anywhere instead of cash. If that still isn't good enough, even half cash and half vouchers would make me happy-- at least half of it is going toward the child's upkeep, not anything personal for the mother that if she can't afford with her own money she has no business having, just like everyone else.

 

[mummy2jack]

i am goin thru this with fob at moment. So am not gonna get too much into this cos bit of a sore point at the moment.
In my opinion, a child is not "pay per view" Whether access is arranged or not, that child still needs to be kept warm, fed, clothed etc. Why should that be 1 parents responsibiltiy if it takes 2 to create the life?

 

[ShanandBoc]

i am goin thru this with fob at moment. So am not gonna get too much into this cos bit of a sore point at the moment.
In my opinion, a child is not "pay per view" Whether access is arranged or not, that child still needs to be kept warm, fed, clothed etc. Why should that be 1 parents responsibiltiy if it takes 2 to create the life?

Sorry hope this thread hasnt upset you! x

 

[Nibblenic]

I like that. My childs not pay per view. That a really good way of looking at it and it make a huge amount of sense.

 

[pinklightbulb]

Sorry if I have offended anyone with the access talk. I did say that if the father being denied must pay it should be in vouchers that can be used anywhere, not cash money. Then everyone is happy. The child is being supported that way. I still believe in my heart that if the mother denies access for her own selfish reasons she deserves nothing from the father and my personal experience with my OH's ex colour my opinion and it probably shows. If she doesn't want the father around for selfish, spiteful reasons, why should she gain anything from him? She chose to parent alone in the case that she has denied access for reasons that are not justifiable, and hugs to any mums who are dealing with asses for FOBs. They are not all like that though and this is my point. Why does MOB need his money if she kicks him out of the kid's life because she is vindictive?