Avoiding paying your child maintenance? You are about to be targeted more so!

Noreen1

Wibbs wrote: »

Terry nappies for the win. Save a fortune apparently and far better for the environment. More work mind.

Terry nappies don't save as much as you might think - nor are they necessarily as good for the environment as you might believe.

Consider the financial cost of washing powder, fabric conditioner, nappy liners, but more importantly, the electricity cost for running a washing machine and tumble dryer. The real cost is in running a tumble dryer, though..........

Then compare the environmental cost of energy usage, since our energy is largely obtained from fossil fuels..... and the possible damage to the environment caused by chlorine based products (You really wouldn't want to hang brown "patchwork" nappies on the line - quite aside from the health risk to the child from fungal infection caused by improperly washed nappies........

All more important than the amount of work involved

Noreen

seamus

No access rights == no money.

It should be the default position that the non-custodial parent can claim up to 50% access to the child unless it can be shown in court that the parent is incapable of adequately caring for the child in their home or otherwise presents a danger to the child.

If the parent isn't paying maintenance, they don't get access. Likewise, if access is being denied, they can withhold maintenance payments without penalty.

_Kaiser_

K-9 wrote: »

The only 100% safe method there is, is abstinence!

I see your point, but sometimes stuff happens. Some women who would have been pro abortion before a pregnancy change their opinion when pregnant.

Yes but as that's their right/decision, it's equally their responsibility if they decide to keep it (or not).

If the man involved gets no say in this initial decision, then I think it's unfair to expect him to automatically simply cough up financially - especially if he is not given any rights/involvement with the child after its born... which again is (in practise) largely determined by the mother as it stands.

Equally where maintenance IS paid, it needs to be ensured that that money does go towards the upkeep of the child, and not (as someone else pointed out) on the mother's social life etc.

Ultimately what needs to be considered here is the welfare of any potential child, and I'd be unconvinced that a resentful parent is the best way to start off such a relationship.

----
Slightly off-topic, but I'd wager that most pregnancies are unplanned, but that the 2 parties involved come to terms with it and accept it over the course of the 9 months. Ideally of course they start to look forward to it as well.

This is of course easier if the 2 people are in a relationship and it was something that was always "on the cards" anyway, but where one side isn't ready to be a parent, or maybe it's a one night stand, that is where the problems start.

(Then there's the question of "do most men genuinely want children, or is it something they do to keep their partner when she decides it's time", but that's another thread.. in fact, I think it was done here a while back!)

Nevyn

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Well actually that's not a bad idea - maybe rather than just jumping into bed together it might be an idea to maybe get to know each other a bit first!

I agree but how realistic you think it is that it will happen?

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Anyway, I think you're trying to derail my post which was pointing out the current inequity whereby the man has no real rights or say, but is expected to still accept responsibility in the example I used, and THAT'S what I'd have an issue with.

Nope I was asking cos the over simplified answers don't work when talking about such a complex matter as sex and that the majority of irish adults esp those in their teens and twenties could be better informed about sex and reproduction and seem to have difficulty talking about it.

Ie they'd have no trouble shagging a stranger they just meet senseless but they couldn't talk about sex with them.

If father's are to have more rights and responsibility and parenting becomes more of a equal task and one for both parents then I am all for that as the children should benefit.

K-9

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Yes but as that's their right/decision, it's equally their responsibility if they decide to keep it (or not).

If the man involved gets no say in this initial decision, then I think it's unfair to expect him to automatically simply cough up financially - especially if he is not given any rights/involvement with the child after its born... which again is (in practise) largely determined by the mother as it stands.

Thems the breaks I'm afraid. Contraception drastically reduces the risk, but it doesn't eliminate it. The system isn't fair, but that isn't a good enough reason to walk away from a child.

Kaiser2000 wrote:

Equally where maintenance IS paid, it needs to be ensured that that money does go towards the upkeep of the child, and not (as someone else pointed out) on the mother's social life etc.

How would you do that? As long as the child is being looked after reasonably well, does it matter what the Mothers social life is like? Obviously there will be extreme cases, but usually, it shouldn't be an issue.

Kaiser2000 wrote:

Ultimately what needs to be considered here is the welfare of any potential child, and I'd be unconvinced that a resentful parent is the best way to start off such a relationship.

Yes, but really how do you avoid it? Its a situation that 2 people cannot agree on and there is no compromise available. Either she has the baby or doesn't.

Kaiser2000 wrote:

----
Slightly off-topic, but I'd wager that most pregnancies are unplanned, but that the 2 parties involved come to terms with it and accept it over the course of the 9 months. Ideally of course they start to look forward to it as well.

This is of course easier if the 2 people are in a relationship and it was something that was always "on the cards" anyway, but where one side isn't ready to be a parent, or maybe it's a one night stand, that is where the problems start.

(Then there's the question of "do most men genuinely want children, or is it something they do to keep their partner when she decides it's time", but that's another thread.. in fact, I think it was done here a while back!)

I think a pregnancy is different for men and women! Doh! What I mean is the emotions obviously kick in earlier for a woman, men usually later, at the birth or after that.

Butch Cassidy

Thaedydal wrote: »

So every guy should wear a condom (no issues there) but should also check with the woman before having sex if she'd have an abortion if she gets preggers?

That'd go down well with the chat up lines. "How's it goin, can I buy you a drink, your place or mine, oh will you have an abortion? I forgot to bring the johnnies....."

Wolfe Tone

Rights to the child should be split 50:50.

ntlbell

Yawns wrote: »

Ha ha where do I start?

€25 would prob cover the week if and only if you already have the clothes etc in for her. What about when she gets older and needs a lot of new clothes? How much will be left over from that €25 to buy clothes AFTER the mother buys the nappies and food?

Nappies, baby wipes, milk formula / milk, jars of food, baby cereals, juices, etc. Oh and magicaly the mother of course would have lots left over from your €25 to buy the baby bibs, vests, shoes, pants, tops etc. Bravo on your parenting skills is all I can say.

Now don't gimmie an arguement saying you'll buy the clothes and stuff she needs or the mother will buy it from other money. You said €25 a week would do a baby. Simple fact is it won't. Get over it. €65 a week is fine and even at that sometimes just won't cut it.

There's two parents.

two 25e's

a baby shouldn't need more than 50e a week unless you're buying some stupid designer nappies.

easyeason3

ntlbell wrote: »

There's two parents.

two 25e's

a baby shouldn't need more than 50e a week unless you're buying some stupid designer nappies.

I don't have kids so this will have to be explained to me.

Does the €50 cover health insurance, dentist, stuff from the pharmacy, nappies, clothes,toys etc?

NOGMaxpower

Wibbs wrote: »

It would be equally nice if while they're at it if they brought in legislation to balance the the rights of fathers who are paying.

WELL SAID, another law protecting the majority of mothers but yet another failure to protect the rights of fathers.

What about payments to mothers who are re married?

weiland79

Wibbs wrote: »

It would be equally nice if while they're at it if they brought in legislation to balance the the rights of fathers who are paying.

You know that's all well and good and i happen to agree with your statement but it's not the point of the thread is it?
It pisses me off that everytime the topic about the parents that don't pay comes up it is hijacked with the parents that do.

The father of my partners child has given her in total 500 euros since the little girl was born, she will be 5 in september. This is a disgrace and it is about time the government stepped up to the plate and try and resolve this situation. And just to give you an idea of how much of a joke the current system is.

We have taken him to court 3 times in the last year,he turned up once was ordered to pay 75 euros a week ( this includes his arrears for the last 5 years) which he hasn't paid a cent of yet. The other two times he didn't bother his arse turning up so a bench warrant was issued on both occasions, he has never been picked up or be made accountable for his child.

ntlbell

easyeason3 wrote: »

I don't have kids so this will have to be explained to me.

Does the €50 cover health insurance, dentist, stuff from the pharmacy, nappies, clothes,toys etc?

Well the 25e was for someone not working.

Would the baby then not be on the parents medical card?

easyeason3

ntlbell wrote: »

Well the 25e was for someone not working.

Would the baby then not be on the parents medical card?

But what has working got to do with it, the child will need the same amount?
It just sounds like very little to feed a child on. I suppose if you were horsing chips & chicken nuggets into them then yeah the €25 would cover it.
But to actually feed a child properly with fruit, veg & proper meat would cost more I'd imagine.

weiland79

easyeason3 wrote: »

But what has working got to do with it, the child will need the same amount?
It just sounds like very little to feed a child on. I suppose if you were horsing chips & chicken nuggets into them then yeah the €25 would cover it.
But to actually feed a child properly with fruit, veg & proper meat would cost more I'd imagine.

Not to mention childcare costs if the parent is working full time. My partner pays 800 per month for childcare.

Butch Cassidy

weiland79 wrote: »

You know that's all well and good and i happen to agree with your statement but it's not the point of the thread is it?
It pisses me off that everytime the topic about the parents that don't pay comes up it is hijacked with the parents that do.

The father of my partners child has given her in total 500 euros since the little girl was born, she will be 5 in september. This is a disgrace and it is about time the government stepped up to the plate and try and resolve this situation. And just to give you an idea of how much of a joke the current system is.

We have taken him to court 3 times in the last year,he turned up once was ordered to pay 75 euros a week ( this includes his arrears for the last 5 years) which he hasn't paid a cent of yet. The other two times he didn't bother his arse turning up so a bench warrant was issued on both occasions, he has never been picked up or be made accountable for his child.

There's no room in prison for these kind of offences - http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0621/1224272953811.html

Like most things in this country a radical rethink is necessary rather than just creating new incentives to get a criminal record.

K-9

ntlbell wrote: »

Well the 25e was for someone not working.

Would the baby then not be on the parents medical card?

Not sure if he would get one for the child, if he isn't the custodial parent.

ntlbell

easyeason3 wrote: »

But what has working got to do with it, the child will need the same amount?
It just sounds like very little to feed a child on. I suppose if you were horsing chips & chicken nuggets into them then yeah the €25 would cover it.
But to actually feed a child properly with fruit, veg & proper meat would cost more I'd imagine.

It won't need health insurance?

or money for doctors visits etc etc?

hello?

it's not 25e tho, it's 50, TWO parents, 25 is half

if you shop correctly and plan ahead, it's not that difficult

easyeason3

weiland79 wrote: »

Not to mention childcare costs if the parent is working full time. My partner pays 800 per month for childcare.

Yeah you see this is what I'm on about. €25 wouldn't go too far.
It probably sounds like a resonable amount to a single parent that isn't working but in reality I don't think it would go too far to provide for the child.

And it takes two to tango so it should be 50/50 in my book in all aspects of the welfare of the child.

ntlbell

weiland79 wrote: »

Not to mention childcare costs if the parent is working full time. My partner pays 800 per month for childcare.

Well if the parent isn't working, there's your child care sorted.

mind you it would mean giving the parent actual _real_ access rights :eek:

ntlbell

easyeason3 wrote: »

Yeah you see this is what I'm on about. €25 wouldn't go too far.
It probably sounds like a resonable amount to a single parent that isn't working but in reality I don't think it would go too far to provide for the child.

And it takes two to tango so it should be 50/50 in my book in all aspects of the welfare of the child.

Again if one parent isn't working, child care sorted.

weiland79

Butch Cassidy wrote: »

There's no room in prison for these kind of offences - http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0621/1224272953811.html

Like most things in this country a radical rethink is necessary rather than just creating new incentives to get a criminal record.

I never said i thought he should be locked up, but whats the point in dragging all of us into court for exactly zero return, is it just so the powers that be look to be doing something. It cost us nearly two grand for representation, which of course we will never recoup.
A radical rethink is exactly what needs to happen and is something i will be taking up with my local TD.

weiland79

1

BumbleB

So lets let out all the murderers,drug addicts and rapists of jail and put the unsupporting fathers and people who cant pay their mortgages in .
Lovely model of society. yes.

Wibbs

seamus wrote: »

No access rights == no money.

It should be the default position that the non-custodial parent can claim up to 50% access to the child unless it can be shown in court that the parent is incapable of adequately caring for the child in their home or otherwise presents a danger to the child.

If the parent isn't paying maintenance, they don't get access. Likewise, if access is being denied, they can withhold maintenance payments without penalty.

+1

weiland79 wrote: »

You know that's all well and good and i happen to agree with your statement but it's not the point of the thread is it?
It pisses me off that everytime the topic about the parents that don't pay comes up it is hijacked with the parents that do.

Because its equally important and because it seems too much is weighted one way. Maybe its just been my personal experiences seeing mates go through this has coloured it for me. I've seen these guys(4 in all) get screwed over time and time again through the courts. Another mates brother actually ended up committing suicide over the stress of it and how he saw it was affecting his child. On the one hand there was the hand out looking for financial support(two of these men even lost the roof over their heads that they had paid for), but on the other denial of access. These men had no issue paying for their kids, but naturally wanted to be in their lives, only to be at the beck and call of the mothers when they felt like it or were trying to make a point. For balance I also had a mate who's deadbeat ex prick partner paid for nothing. So I do see both sides, but I also see how its unfairly weighted to one side.

Melion

danbohan wrote: »

ever thing getting a job might mean their be more money for you and your baby , or would that just be toooooo much !

Have a job thanks, 2 actually.

Melion

MoonDancer wrote: »

€25 wouldn't even cover her nappies for the week!

2 boxes of pampers (4+) in Dunnes for €20, thats 140+ nappies

Melion

easyeason3 wrote: »

I don't have kids so this will have to be explained to me.

Does the €50 cover health insurance, dentist, stuff from the pharmacy, nappies, clothes,toys etc?

If you dont have kids, why are you in here preaching?

Melion

Biggins wrote: »

Have you taken into account that an average baby/toddler will go through 1/2 tins of (for example) "Cow & Gate Complete Care" food a week? At €12/€15 a tin it adds up.
On top of that there is an average €15 a week for nappies. There there is supplement baby meal food in a jar. Clothing external and vests (internals which get soiled!), heat, even things down to mild washing lotions (that are PH neutral) for a child, shoes, washing powder! There is a lot more...

Its not one/two big items that creates the bill, its LOADS of minor stuff that just adds up.

(dad of 4 here - for the record)

Im only going by my daughter.
One tin of Aptamil does her just over a week(2 full bottles a day and 3ox before bed).
As i said, there are ALWAYS deals on the pampers boxes in Dunnes, Tesco etc.
We never use the jar foods anymore. She has boiled egg and toast for breakfast, mashed potato for dinner and a cereal for supper. All are very cheap.

weiland79

Wibbs wrote: »

+1

Because its equally important and because it seems too much is weighted one way. Maybe its just been my personal experiences seeing mates go through this has coloured it for me. I've seen these guys(4 in all) get screwed over time and time again through the courts. Another mates brother actually ended up committing suicide over the stress of it and how he saw it was affecting his child. On the one hand there was the hand out looking for financial support(two of these men even lost the roof over their heads that they had paid for), but on the other denial of access. These men had no issue paying for their kids, but naturally wanted to be in their lives, only to be at the beck and call of the mothers when they felt like it or were trying to make a point. For balance I also had a mate who's deadbeat ex prick partner paid for nothing. So I do see both sides, but I also see how its unfairly weighted to one side.

There is no doubt the entire system is FUBAR. I was denied access by my sons mother for 2 years of his life even though i was paying every month on time. Thankfully she married a cool dude who made her see sense.
And i am under no illusions that she would have continued as she was without his intervention i would be in the same position, so i can see both sides very clearly. But this is not what i wanted to discuss. It is the scumbags that get away with time and again. I just don't understand how they can be allowed to not pay and how the other parent is just expected to get on with it.

jayo11

My ex and myself came to an agreement over maintenance and access.I pay her a set amount every week but every second day she on the phone looking for more money for something.What annoys me most is the fact that the mother thinks the dad should pay for absolutely everything eg she books a hol to spain and hits me for the mon to pay for my son but i book a hol and pay for him myself,so i pay for both hols AND pay maintenance it makes me sick,and also all you get is i have esb bills phone bills etc etc

Elle Collins

Melion wrote: »

Im only going by my daughter... She has boiled egg and toast for breakfast, mashed potato for dinner and a cereal for supper. All are very cheap.

You'd want to start getting some fruit, veg and dairy into that childs diet.

redout

How can you put a price on your child ?

She is a human being not a fcukin car.

Melion

Elle Collins wrote: »

You'd want to start getting some fruit, veg and dairy into that childs diet.

She obviously has more than just that. Yoghurt after her potatoes(which have veg mashed in to them), snacks on banana and apples during the day.

Melion

jayo11 wrote: »

My ex and myself came to an agreement over maintenance and access.I pay her a set amount every week but every second day she on the phone looking for more money for something.What annoys me most is the fact that the mother thinks the dad should pay for absolutely everything eg she books a hol to spain and hits me for the mon to pay for my son but i book a hol and pay for him myself,so i pay for both hols AND pay maintenance it makes me sick,and also all you get is i have esb bills phone bills etc etc

Thats what annoys me. I have mates who are the same, they pay the set amount every week but still get calls looking for more money. One of them has a daughter, the mother went off on holidays for 2 weeks, he had his daughter for that time but she was still looking for money off him.

easyeason3

Melion wrote: »

If you dont have kids, why are you in here preaching?

So asking questions is preaching now is it?

And just so you know I don't need to be a parent to know your daughters diet is crap. My dog is fed better.

Melion

easyeason3 wrote: »

So asking questions is preaching now is it?

And just so you know I don't need to be a parent to know your daughters diet is crap. My dog is fed better.

Thats good for your dog, and thanks for your input. Are you one of these people who like to pretend/think that their dog is just like a child?

Melion

And just for the people concerned, thats obviously not what she has every day(Hence me saying, she obviously has more than that). Thats just what she had yesterday.

easyeason3

Melion wrote: »

Thats good for your dog, and thanks for your input. Are you one of these people who like to pretend/think that their dog is just like a child?

Nope. But I will make sure he's looked after.

Melion

easyeason3 wrote: »

Nope. But I will make sure he's looked after.

Well done, must be hard.

lost in my own head

jayo11 wrote: »

My ex and myself came to an agreement over maintenance and access.I pay her a set amount every week but every second day she on the phone looking for more money for something.What annoys me most is the fact that the mother thinks the dad should pay for absolutely everything eg she books a hol to spain and hits me for the mon to pay for my son but i book a hol and pay for him myself,so i pay for both hols AND pay maintenance it makes me sick,and also all you get is i have esb bills phone bills etc etc

Sounds like she is taking advantage of the situation and is using your son to do it, that is just sick and wrong.

citizenerased1

I've actually never got a penny off my dad in 18 and a half years...
prob wouldn't take it off the miserable so and so anyways!



actually come to think about i've never got anything off him!

efb

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

He does have a point to be fair, and it goes back to the equality of parents rights issue.

Wibbs is right above with regards to balancing out a man's rights and responsibilities, and it's right that a man should live up to his responsibilities (financially and otherwise), BUT I think the whole "deciding what to do" in a case where a girl/woman gets pregnant because BOTH parties were stupid (nothing wrong with women carrying condoms too ya know!) needs to be equal too.

Example: if both had said they didn't want kids, but she gets pregnant (because they were BOTH stupid) and decides to keep it (against his wishes) then that's her choice and should be her responsibility.
After all, if she decides she doesn't want it (but he does) and gets on a boat, the guy won't have much of a say in that either will he?

Can't have it both ways.. equal rights means fairness to BOTH sides.

Oh for transparency, no children myself..

listen if a guy doesn't want kids thats his options, WRAP IT UP, even it "he gives him a rash..."

Biggins

jayo11 wrote: »

My ex and myself came to an agreement over maintenance and access.I pay her a set amount every week but every second day she on the phone looking for more money for something.What annoys me most is the fact that the mother thinks the dad should pay for absolutely everything eg she books a hol to spain and hits me for the mon to pay for my son but i book a hol and pay for him myself,so i pay for both hols AND pay maintenance it makes me sick,and also all you get is i have esb bills phone bills etc etc

Maybe with the new system that is coming in, there will be an assessment ability for you to agree to - that will work in your favour for once.
"I'm paying €X amount as stated by such a departmental sanction and that it!"
Thats way, if she comes looking greedily for more, you can tell here "no" and have official sanction to be able to do so.

I know a good few blokes (including my bother in law), who is being taken advantage of and abused to the hilt by their ex's.
The ex's use the child as a form of blackmail to get more dosh! Its just not right - and the laws in Ireland on it are a damn modern day disgrace!

Splendour

Wibbs wrote: »

Might be a plan actually. Then again it might be easy to say "yes I'll have an abortion" in theory, not so much in practice.

I do agree with Kaiser2000 though men have far less choice when a pregnancy does occur. If he doesnt want it. Tough. If he does. Tough. Until the child arrives and then its responsibility time. Still has less choice though even there. The cards are stacked in the mothers favour.

The sooner the male pill is out the better IMHO.

The cards are stacked in the kids favour. You don't want the responsibility of kids? Don't have sex-simple as.

Butch Cassidy

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0529/1224271393377.html

Single parents to lose welfare payment when child turns 13

STEPHEN COLLINS Political Editor

SINGLE PARENTS whose youngest child is over 13 will no longer be able to claim one-parent family payments under the terms of new social welfare legislation published last evening.

The change was described as “blunt and brutal” by Olwyn Enright, the Fine Gael spokeswoman on social protection, who accused Fianna Fáil of a cynical political move in releasing the information late on a Friday.

Under the terms of the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010 there will also be changes to disqualify people from collecting Jobseeker’s Allowance if they refuse an offer of suitable employment.

The one-parent family payment is currently paid to a parent until the youngest child reaches 18, or 22, if the child is in full-time education.

Does anyone here think it's anything more than coincidence that at the same time the lone parent's allowance is being removed the state's writing new laws about maintainence payments?

Any coincidence? Just a slight one? Maybe?

Just a teeny bit?

K-9

Butch Cassidy wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0529/1224271393377.html





Does anyone here think it's anything more than coincidence that at the same time the lone parent's allowance is being removed the state's writing new laws about maintainence payments?

Any coincidence? Just a slight one? Maybe?

Just a teeny bit?

Actually, IMO it is a coincidence, though a very convenient one.

The new laws are needed because of a loophole that transpired from an unrelated challenge. The case involved a women who was sentenced to jail for arrears on a Credit Union loan. Some people are using this loophole not to pay maintenance.

The issue came up towards the end of last year, this bill is a reaction to that.

Biggins

Melion wrote: »

2 boxes of pampers (4+) in Dunnes for €20, thats 140+ nappies

Again, for the record and actual accuracy:

Once in a while Supu-value and Dunnes, etc do specials in the large boxes.
The sizes 3, 3+,4,4+ are available in SINGLE boxes that contain 108 nappies (broken down internally within 3 inner wrappings) within the box.
(There is one currently in my living room in a corner)

The size 5 and 5+ boxes of nappies in the boxes come in the quantity of 96 nappies in the box.
The retail cost of these single boxes ranges (when available!) varies between €16 and €18.
(An average child/toddler will go through at least 3/4 nappies a day. When they start teething, it gets worse by the way. As the teeth emerge, funny enough, the other end is effected too as any hands-on parent will know)

In ALL my years of taking care of my 4 kids - I have NEVER come across double boxes of Pampers (or any other brand) for €20 which contain 140 nappies internally.
Where is this store your seeing these rare, must be HUGE double boxes in???

As each 96/108 box alone is very large and cumbersome (to say the least), most can't go for them while trying to carry other shopping, push a buggy, mind/chase and catch any other accompanying kids, etc at the same time.
So most therefore have to go for the standard packages normally available that cost around €10/€14 that contain less nappies, which also actually fit and is able to slide into the under carriage basket on a buggy.

I think you need to go back and seriously reassess EXACTLY what everything costs and what quantities they are daily available in!

watna

Out of interest, when a parent is ordered to pay maintenance does it come out of their wages directly or do they pay it themselves separately? Is there a child support agency that collects the month and passes it on? I've no idea how it works in Ireland.

In NZ the IRD (inland revenue) collects child support payments and deducts directly from the person's wages and I'm presuming benefits (it does say benefits are taken in to account) http://www.ird.govt.nz/childsupport/background/

It seems like a good way to do it.

Biggins

watna wrote: »

Out of interest, when a parent is ordered to pay maintenance does it come out of their wages directly or do they pay it themselves separately? Is there a child support agency that collects the month and passes it on? I've no idea how it works in Ireland.

In NZ the IRD (inland revenue) collects child support payments and deducts directly from the person's wages and I'm presuming benefits (it does say benefits are taken in to account) http://www.ird.govt.nz/childsupport/background/

It seems like a good way to do it.

I know that in England, if a parent refuses to pay, the government takes it directly from the original source - be it employment or benefit.

Wibbs

Splendour wrote: »

The cards are stacked in the kids favour. You don't want the responsibility of kids? Don't have sex-simple as.

I call shenanigans on that. The kids are all too often the last to get a go at the trough, when the parents are at loggerheads. This legislation is attempting to address the deadbeat father types and that's a good thing for the child involved. What about access rights for the fathers? Those cards need to be stacked too. As for the dont have sex if you dont want kids argument, as we're so often reminded it takes two to tango so apply that to both genders while you're at it and apply responsibility equally.