Single parents.

Topics related to family life.

Re: Single parents.

Postby pinky » 08 Jun 2010, 16:42

DNA is very costly indeed and we send most ours to the UK!!! It is not used enough over here nor do we chase fathers for payment as much as we should. In a male dominated society with men at the judiciary the odds are against the woman from the start.
User avatar
pinky
 

Re: Single parents.

Postby Silke » 09 Jun 2010, 08:45

DNA testing may be costly, but a few 1000 NOK as a one time sum, or a few 1000 NOK every month for the next 18 (to 20/22 years if the mother/child gets into rules and decides to pump as much as possible) doesn't really seem like a great deal...
User avatar
Silke
Brainiac Class Poster
Brainiac Class Poster
 
Posts: 2291
Joined: 07 Aug 2007, 04:41
Location: ??? guess I need to find out...

Re: Single parents.

Postby pinky » 09 Jun 2010, 16:53

Thats true Silke unfortunatly over here payment of maintenance is an ongoing, unending and fruitless saga
User avatar
pinky
 

Re: Single parents.

Postby Ice.Maiden » 14 Jun 2010, 19:40

And not much better here. The CSA've tried deducting payments not only from earnings, but from benefits as well, but all the fathers do is pack in their jobs if they have one, or plead poverty and then pay some measley amount like £2. 50p a week.

The problem is, all cases should be looked at on individual merit, but there are so many of them to chase up. If a woman runs off with another guy, simply because she fancies to, and that guy then helps to look after her and her child, why should the natural father be hammered for payments when none of this was his fault? As in the case of absent and irresponsible men, there are women like it as well. It's all very well to blame the men all the time, but I know of two cases where women've drained them of cash, yet live very well on their new partner's earnings and anything they earn themselves. In both cases, it hasn't always been easy for the fathers to see their children. The system needs shaking up.

I reckon that if the erring parent doesn't pay anything, unless it's literally through great hardship then they should lose the right to see their children. It'd sort out those who really cared for their offspring, unless, as I say, they weren't in a position to contribute properly. It's different if two people decide to split for other reasons, in which case both should pay.
User avatar
Ice.Maiden
Golden Poster
Golden Poster
 
Posts: 70045
Joined: 14 Aug 2009, 23:31
Location: Peak District

Re: Single parents.

Postby Silke » 15 Jun 2010, 08:47

Ice.Maiden wrote:I reckon that if the erring parent doesn't pay anything, unless it's literally through great hardship then they should lose the right to see their children.


that wouldn't be fair on the children. Plus it opens up a whole new way of exploiting the system and an easier way to "chase away unwanted parents".
User avatar
Silke
Brainiac Class Poster
Brainiac Class Poster
 
Posts: 2291
Joined: 07 Aug 2007, 04:41
Location: ??? guess I need to find out...

Re: Single parents.

Postby threenorns » 15 Jun 2010, 09:17

Ice.Maiden wrote: If a woman runs off with another guy, simply because she fancies to, and that guy then helps to look after her and her child, why should the natural father be hammered for payments when none of this was his fault?


because child support has nothing to do with paying for the children - it's the non-custodial parent's compensation to the custodial parent; it's not actually money FOR the kids (or else the courts would order the money be deposited into an account until the child is 18yrs of age). the custodial parent has the full responsibility of raising and caring for the children but they're still the non-custodial parent's children, like it or not, and they can't just freely walk away from the children they were happy enough to create and life is good. since the non-custodial parent isn't living in the home helping with diapers, feedings, housework, laundry, school runs, homework, saying sorry to the neighbour for breaking the window with a baseball, keeping the kid on track with her newspaper route or his boy scouts, etc, the money compensates the custodial parent for a portion of time and expense.

just like all those parents who think that just because the child support is late, they can block access - they can't; child support is child support and access is access and the two have nothing to do with each other.
User avatar
threenorns
Brainiac Class Poster
Brainiac Class Poster
 
Posts: 3413
Joined: 11 Aug 2007, 20:13

Re: Single parents.

Postby pinky » 15 Jun 2010, 17:23

I reckon that if the erring parent doesn't pay anything, unless it's literally through great hardship then they should lose the right to see their children.


I think this would hurt the child more in the long run. Every child in my view has the right to see both parents whether they pay maintenance or not. As noted perhaps the absent parent may contribute in other ways like provide childcare assist with buying the child items they need. Contact with parents should alwasy be about the childs needs not the parents and is an absolute right , that in my view should never be taken away. If parents are inappropriate contact can be supervised but it is necessary for all children at some points in their lives.
User avatar
pinky
 

Re: Single parents.

Postby Ice.Maiden » 04 Jul 2010, 22:08

But child support HAS got something to do with the children threenorns - that's what it is, money to help support the child - not for the parent to splash on themselves, as so many sadly do.
We have differing issues here. I was talking about a women who suddenly decides to run off with a new partner. If the father hadn't done anything wrong, what I meant was - why should he be partially responsible for HER upkeep as well as his children? I agree that a man should pay for his kids, but if he doesn't, despite being in a position to, then having the threat of not being able to have contact with them should be enough to make a decent man cough up. There has to be some way of bringing these fathers who don't contribute to heel.
User avatar
Ice.Maiden
Golden Poster
Golden Poster
 
Posts: 70045
Joined: 14 Aug 2009, 23:31
Location: Peak District

Re: Single parents.

Postby threenorns » 09 Jul 2010, 04:05

Ice.Maiden wrote:But child support HAS got something to do with the children threenorns - that's what it is, money to help support the child - not for the parent to splash on themselves, as so many sadly do.


and why shouldn't the custodial parent splash on themselves? they're not entitled to a night out with they boys? a manicure? a decent set of clothing?

now, if the child is going without - ie, isn't being fed or clothed adequately while the parent is blowing money on booze, drugs, etc, then that's a whole other issue and has nothing to do with child support. that's a child abuse issue and still doesn't excuse the non-custodial parent from honouring his/her obligation.

my ex does it to me all the time - "saari needs a new bike - you'll buy it out of this month's child support". to which i replied "if YOU want her to have a new bike, then YOU can buy it for her. otherwise, we can go splits - IF i can afford it". he buys her toys - a paddling pool, water guns, etc - clothing, snow cone maker, etc, then tries to tell me he'll take half the cost out of the child support. i have to thump it through his head that if HE wants to buy her something, then HE pays for it - because if it's coming out of the child support, then *I* am buying it and he'd bloody well better clear it with me first! what makes it worse is he then tells saari "look what daddy bought for you" - i said if it's coming out of the child support, then MOMMY bought it for her and if we're going splits, then WE bought it.

"splashing" on myself has so far consisted of buying myself two pairs of pants, a pair of walking shoes, and two new bras - over the past 3yrs. after 3yrs of 24/7 child care, you better believe it that if i get the chance to go out partying, i'm SO gone!
User avatar
threenorns
Brainiac Class Poster
Brainiac Class Poster
 
Posts: 3413
Joined: 11 Aug 2007, 20:13

Re: Single parents.

Postby pinky » 09 Jul 2010, 17:10

Good for you threenorms sticking by your guns. Over here some fathers have to pay maintenance to their child and her mother depending on her income. ?But as I said it is hard to get them to pay up. And yes I agree part of caring for and supporting a child also involves caring for the parent who cares for the child. Surely a mother who gets out a bit and can have a treat for herself is in much better space to care for her child .
User avatar
pinky
 

Re: Single parents.

Postby Silke » 10 Jul 2010, 03:57

three, if that is what came out of the child support for your self it isn't "splash on yourself". Some parents use it all on themselves, always and leave their kids with a bare minimum. Then we can go into details... is using part of the child support to pay the bills diverting the money from who should have it? No - child support is mainly to keep the children clothed, fed and with a roof over their head. School wherever that isn't free anyway. you can tell your ex that. Meaning toys comes from whatever the parents make outside of that (banning of course whatever is bound in bills and those three/four things).
User avatar
Silke
Brainiac Class Poster
Brainiac Class Poster
 
Posts: 2291
Joined: 07 Aug 2007, 04:41
Location: ??? guess I need to find out...

Re: Single parents.

Postby Ice.Maiden » 10 Jul 2010, 19:07

Well I think that's why Child Support is called that - it's meant to help to support the child, NOT to blow on other things such as a night out for the parent. If they want to go out, I absolutely agree they should, but at their own expense. If the mother's working, then she should be able to treat herself now and again.
I'm FOR a man paying for his children, but not for the mother as well - particularly if she gets herself a new partner who may already be sharing bills with her and so on. I know women here who end up keeping the family home and get money for the children as well., so along with what else they have, they're more than in pocket.
User avatar
Ice.Maiden
Golden Poster
Golden Poster
 
Posts: 70045
Joined: 14 Aug 2009, 23:31
Location: Peak District

Re: Single parents.

Postby pinky » 10 Jul 2010, 20:03

I guess its not just about finance really. Sure some mums get the family home but hey there is no cost that can be put on for parenting and rearing a child/ren and the sacrifices that it entails. It is only right the child should be able to remin in their family home and keep the same friends and school. And the parent that cares for them should remain there also. Parenting is not an easy task for so many single parents.
User avatar
pinky
 

Re: Single parents.

Postby Ice.Maiden » 10 Jul 2010, 22:11

I agree with that.
User avatar
Ice.Maiden
Golden Poster
Golden Poster
 
Posts: 70045
Joined: 14 Aug 2009, 23:31
Location: Peak District

Re: Single parents.

Postby pinky » 11 Jul 2010, 12:33

I think it is hard for the single parents who work and want the best for their child/ren and do their best. There will always be the others who are happy to stay at home and live off the state
User avatar
pinky
 

Re: Single parents.

Postby Ice.Maiden » 12 Jul 2010, 18:48

That's going to be remedied here, by all accounts. Too many young single mums do just that, preferring to scrape by on benefits, rather than go out to work. However, I've always believed that if children are planned for, then mums need time at home with their children. There are nurseries round here which take babies in from 6 weeks old, and i'm sorry, but what's the point in having children if they're to be farmed out so early on? To my mind, it reeks of money coming first, and yes, I know my attitude might be considered as "old fashioned", but it never did us any harm having our mum at home all the time to look after us, and that's exactly what i've done with my own. Having said that, what works for one, wouldn't for another, but I only have to look at how well-adjusted and good my children are, to believe that it was right for us.
User avatar
Ice.Maiden
Golden Poster
Golden Poster
 
Posts: 70045
Joined: 14 Aug 2009, 23:31
Location: Peak District

Re: Single parents.

Postby pinky » 13 Jul 2010, 15:08

Well I fully support single or any mother returning to work after the birth of a child though maybe not six weeks. Employment serves many purposes for some not just financial and I believe the workplace should be more family friendly to facilitate the working mum rather than make it harder for her.
User avatar
pinky
 

Re: Single parents.

Postby Ice.Maiden » 15 Jul 2010, 10:07

I don't see how that can be implemented though. Some firms over here are flexible in the hours which they expect working mums to do, but it's still no joke having to get yourself up and ready for work as well as to get the child ready for nursery/child minders. Then once the parent comes home again, probably tired out from the work, they have to collect their child and give "quality time" to it and then start on any washing, cooking, housework. No, it's not easy at all.
User avatar
Ice.Maiden
Golden Poster
Golden Poster
 
Posts: 70045
Joined: 14 Aug 2009, 23:31
Location: Peak District

Re: Single parents.

Postby pinky » 15 Jul 2010, 20:15

Its very easy tointroduce really like flexible working hours, more part time opportunities, childcare on site for example
User avatar
pinky
 

Re: Single parents.

Postby Ice.Maiden » 16 Jul 2010, 22:23

The flexi-time's already in operation for some, but apart from that it still causes problems. I know some colleges have creches which can be helpful, but the cost of producing one at all places of work, plus for the staff needed, is too great for most firms to splash out on - along with the problem of if the child wants its mummy and vice versa, which could interfere with working time.
Part-time vacancies aren''t viable for single working mums either, as this often doesn't pay enough for them to come off benefits. This's being looked at over here, to find ways of making work a more attractive alternative than just waiting to receive money off the state, but the stress of trying to fit work in with giving enough time to your children is only going to cause more parents to go off "sick".
It's fine in two-parent families, where there's another person working to bring in the bulk of the money, but even then, I don't know of one working parent who doesn't feel guilt at leaving their children with someone else. This becomes particularly apparent when those at work have to miss out on school activities which their children may be part of - drama productions (usually put on during the daytime), sports days, trips out (when non-working parents can be there to wave their children off), school photo sessions, meetings and so on. It's a very hard decision for single parents to make, and whilst some are happy to leave their children for most of the day, there are more who aren't.
Our government's trying to ease the cost of childcare as well, which'll enable a few more people to return to work, but since there are thousands who'd be claiming this, this means that many more thousands of pounds'll have to be found from somewhere - usually by raising taxes. This isn't fair on those who work hard but have no children, or for those whose children are now off hand.
I think one way of tackling it, would be to pay parents a reasonable living wage to stay at home with their families if they so wanted to, but this wage'd be taxable, and perhaps only available for so many years or for just up to 2 children. They're already going to cut child allowance off for those earning over a certain amount, but something's gone badly wrong somewhere. There aren't the jobs available, what with industries being cut. Years ago, there was work for anyone who wanted it, and so it was up to the individual families whether mum went out to work or not, but now with so many single parents and not enough vacancies, we're reaping the adverse side of closing shipyards, pits, factories and so on. It's difficult to know how to remedy this without taking away peoples' freedom and rights.
The cost of living here's becoming horrendous, so many parents, whether single ones or not, are being forced to go out to work. This's having a dire side effect on the NHS. There's never been so many people registering as sick or incapacitated through depression and stress, and this certainly doesn't make for a happy parent - which in turn reflects on their children.
The whole business needs re-thinking, giving worthwhile opportunities and incentives to encourage folk to go out to work, but taking into account their feelings and decisions.
User avatar
Ice.Maiden
Golden Poster
Golden Poster
 
Posts: 70045
Joined: 14 Aug 2009, 23:31
Location: Peak District

PreviousNext

Return to Family Relations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron