Non paying fathers to lose passports /driving licenses

Post by Stuart
See there is a suggestion that non paying fathers might have their passports or
driving licenses impounded .
Who dreams up these things .What has that got to do with renaging on maintenance
payments .

Next on the list will come those who are late filing their tax return.
And then comes those who are alleged by the police to have committed an
offence. Oh wait, they are already on the list ... it'll have to be
those who are too *early* with their tax returns.

But rest assured that only those with something to hide will have
anything to fear.

--
PeteM
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

ABC

2006-12-13 13:19:30 UTC

What about reducing payments to those mothers who refuse the fathers
visiting rights? Or revoking the mothers driving licence/passport if they
refuse to let the father see the child.

The problem with the goverment and its advisors is that they are under the
assumption that mothers are the victims.

JaggedofCanaria

2006-12-13 13:37:57 UTC

Post by ABC
What about reducing payments to those mothers who refuse the fathers
visiting rights? Or revoking the mothers driving licence/passport if they
refuse to let the father see the child.

Tricky one this, especially as by refusing contact overnight the parent
who has custody of the child can gain maximum financial support. As I
understand it the more the non-resident parent has contact the more the
support amount is reduced. I suppose this may be incentive enough in some
cases to refuse contact. It does seem a little one-sided.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

allan tracy

2006-12-13 18:02:38 UTC

Post by ABC
What about reducing payments to those mothers who refuse the fathers
visiting rights? Or revoking the mothers driving licence/passport if they
refuse to let the father see the child.

Then the father should use the courts to gain access.

It still doesn't make it the taxpayers problem to pick up the tab for
his kids - tough basically.

Richard Miller

2006-12-14 21:21:17 UTC

What about reducing payments to those mothers who refuse the fathers
visiting rights? Or revoking the mothers driving licence/passport if they
refuse to let the father see the child.

If they do it in breach of a contact order, I say don't faff around,
just jail them.

Post by ABC
The problem with the goverment and its advisors is that they are under the
assumption that mothers are the victims.

I've spoken to some of them. They aren't.

--
Richard Miller

Alan Holmes

2006-12-14 23:19:02 UTC

What about reducing payments to those mothers who refuse the fathers
visiting rights? Or revoking the mothers driving licence/passport if they
refuse to let the father see the child.

If they do it in breach of a contact order, I say don't faff around, just
jail them.

The mothers you mean?

a***@hotmail.co.uk

2006-12-15 05:20:15 UTC

Hey, I've got a half-baked idea!

Life imprisonment for failing to pay your child support.

In fact, make it life imprisonment plus a fifty pound fixed penalty,
just to make the punishment more severe than that for murder.

That'll learn 'em!

Richard

2006-12-15 13:40:01 UTC

Post by ABC
What about reducing payments to those mothers who refuse the fathers
visiting rights? Or revoking the mothers driving licence/passport if they
refuse to let the father see the child.

If they do it in breach of a contact order, I say don't faff around, just
jail them.

The mothers you mean?

Yes.

Richard Miller

Alan Holmes

2006-12-15 20:16:37 UTC

Post by ABC
What about reducing payments to those mothers who refuse the fathers
visiting rights? Or revoking the mothers driving licence/passport if they
refuse to let the father see the child.

If they do it in breach of a contact order, I say don't faff around, just
jail them.

The mothers you mean?

Yes.

Good!

Post by Richard Miller
Richard Miller

Steve Robinson

2006-12-15 15:26:14 UTC

What about reducing payments to those mothers who refuse the
fathers visiting rights? Or revoking the mothers driving
licence/passport if they refuse to let the father see the child.

If they do it in breach of a contact order, I say don't faff
around, just jail them.

The mothers you mean?

how many of the mothers screaming that they are not recieving thier
dues are not declaring the live in boyfriend or decide not to live as a
cuople with the new bloke because it might lower thier income

--

Richard Miller

2006-12-15 19:28:33 UTC

Post by Steve Robinson
how many of the mothers screaming that they are not recieving thier
dues are not declaring the live in boyfriend or decide not to live as a
cuople with the new bloke because it might lower thier income

This is completely irrelevant to whether fuckwit men are failing to fund
their children.

But in any event, the answer is: a very, very tiny percentage.

--
Richard Miller

Mike

2006-12-16 10:21:35 UTC

Post by ABC
What about reducing payments to those mothers who refuse the fathers
visiting rights? Or revoking the mothers driving licence/passport if they
refuse to let the father see the child.

If they do it in breach of a contact order, I say don't faff around,
just jail them.

You surprise me sometimes, Richard. ;-)

Post by ABC
The problem with the goverment and its advisors is that they are under
the assumption that mothers are the victims.

I've spoken to some of them. They aren't.

AIUI, non-resident mothers are more likely to default on maintenance
payments than non-resident fathers so, if this proposal were intended
as an attack on fathers (and I don't think it was), it could well
backfire. :-) (I presume the penalties will apply to defaulters of
both sexes.)

I'm basically against this proposal because it imposes a penalty for
what is, after all, a civil debt. If it were to be extended to all
judgment debtors, I should find it more acceptable.

That fact that it's only directed at one type of debt suggests to me
that it has nothing to do with ensuring parents with care get enough
money - it's just to save the Government having to pay so much in
benefits.

--
Mike

Richard Miller

2006-12-16 18:26:32 UTC

Post by ABC
What about reducing payments to those mothers who refuse the fathers
visiting rights? Or revoking the mothers driving licence/passport if they
refuse to let the father see the child.

If they do it in breach of a contact order, I say don't faff around,
just jail them.

You surprise me sometimes, Richard. ;-)

I like to keep people on their toes. :-)

Post by ABC
The problem with the goverment and its advisors is that they are
under the assumption that mothers are the victims.

I've spoken to some of them. They aren't.

They will.

Post by Mike
I'm basically against this proposal because it imposes a penalty for
what is, after all, a civil debt. If it were to be extended to all
judgment debtors, I should find it more acceptable.

But it isn't just any old civil debt. It goes to the heart of society:
paying the cost of caring for your children; and failure to meet your
responsibilities doesn't just mean that the creditor loses out, it means
that we all lose out because the state has to provide on a continuing
basis where the debtor parent has failed to meet their continuing
liability.

For that reason I do believe it is very different from any other civil
debt, and justifies this special treatment.

Post by Mike
That fact that it's only directed at one type of debt suggests to me
that it has nothing to do with ensuring parents with care get enough
money - it's just to save the Government having to pay so much in
benefits.

Err, for the Government, read you and me.

--
Richard Miller

Mike

2006-12-18 19:08:54 UTC

paying the cost of caring for your children; and failure to meet your
responsibilities doesn't just mean that the creditor loses out, it means
that we all lose out because the state has to provide on a continuing
basis where the debtor parent has failed to meet their continuing
liability.
For that reason I do believe it is very different from any other civil
debt, and justifies this special treatment.

If these debts affect us all collectively, they're better dealt with
by criminal law. Imposing penalties (confiscation of passports and
driving licences) is also a matter for criminal law. The burden of
proof should therefore be at the criminal standard, not just BoP and
certainly not the opinion of the CSA Mk2.

--
Mike

Richard Miller

2006-12-18 21:23:37 UTC

But it isn't just any old civil debt. It goes to the heart of
society: paying the cost of caring for your children; and failure to
meet your responsibilities doesn't just mean that the creditor loses
out, it means that we all lose out because the state has to provide on
a continuing basis where the debtor parent has failed to meet their
continuing liability.
For that reason I do believe it is very different from any other
civil debt, and justifies this special treatment.

If these debts affect us all collectively, they're better dealt with by
criminal law. Imposing penalties (confiscation of passports and
driving licences) is also a matter for criminal law. The burden of
proof should therefore be at the criminal standard, not just BoP and
certainly not the opinion of the CSA Mk2.

Burden of proof is irrelevant to this issue. Is he the father? Yes/no.
If yes, the money is due. End of.

--
Richard Miller

Mike

2006-12-18 21:51:47 UTC

Post by Mike
If these debts affect us all collectively, they're better dealt with
by criminal law. Imposing penalties (confiscation of passports and
driving licences) is also a matter for criminal law. The burden of
proof should therefore be at the criminal standard, not just BoP and
certainly not the opinion of the CSA Mk2.

Burden of proof is irrelevant to this issue. Is he the father? Yes/no.
If yes, the money is due. End of.

Well, is he the father? There is a presumption of paternity if they
were married but what if she had an affair? What about the mother who
hasn't the faintest idea who the father is, just that it must be one
of half a dozen (or more) men. Should she just pick one at random or
choose the one most likely to have a decent income? How about picking
just any man?

--
Mike

Richard Miller

2006-12-19 02:59:38 UTC

Burden of proof is irrelevant to this issue. Is he the father?
Yes/no. If yes, the money is due. End of.

Well, is he the father? There is a presumption of paternity if they
were married but what if she had an affair? What about the mother who
hasn't the faintest idea who the father is, just that it must be one of
half a dozen (or more) men. Should she just pick one at random or
choose the one most likely to have a decent income? How about picking
just any man?

Then they will do DNA tests as now. All completely irrelevant to the
topic at hand.

--
Richard Miller

Mike

2006-12-19 21:37:27 UTC

Post by Mike
Well, is he the father? There is a presumption of paternity if they
were married but what if she had an affair? What about the mother who
hasn't the faintest idea who the father is, just that it must be one
of half a dozen (or more) men. Should she just pick one at random or
choose the one most likely to have a decent income? How about picking
just any man?

Then they will do DNA tests as now. All completely irrelevant to the
topic at hand.

DNA can only show that a particular man is not the father.

I don't understand why you think proving (to some standard) a man is
the father and, therefore, liable to pay child support, is irrelevant
to whether he should be penalized for failing to do so.

--
Mike

Richard Miller

2006-12-19 21:58:28 UTC

Post by Mike
Well, is he the father? There is a presumption of paternity if they
were married but what if she had an affair? What about the mother
who hasn't the faintest idea who the father is, just that it must be
of half a dozen (or more) men. Should she just pick one at random or
choose the one most likely to have a decent income? How about
picking just any man?

Then they will do DNA tests as now. All completely irrelevant to the
topic at hand.

DNA can only show that a particular man is not the father.
I don't understand why you think proving (to some standard) a man is
the father and, therefore, liable to pay child support, is irrelevant
to whether he should be penalized for failing to do so.

And I don't understand why you think the issue of proving paternity and
making the assessment is of any relevance to the question what are the
appropriate methods of enforcement of a validly made assessment.

--
Richard Miller

Mike

2006-12-19 23:48:10 UTC

Post by Mike
I don't understand why you think proving (to some standard) a man is
the father and, therefore, liable to pay child support, is irrelevant
to whether he should be penalized for failing to do so.

Maybe I didn't explain my POV very well. My argument is that, if a
particular type of debt is to given special treatment by imposing
penalties on defaulters, liability for that debt should also be given
special treatment.

If parents failing to maintain there children affects society as a
whole, imposing penalties on such parents can be justified. However,
penalties are imposed by criminal courts only after guilt (liability)
is proven BRD but liability for a civil debt can be established on
BoP. If a penalty is to be imposed, it should only happen if "guilt"
is proven at the criminal standard. That goes beyond proving that the
judgment debt has not been paid - liability for the debt should also
be proven BRD. IMHO, of course.

--
Mike

Paul Hyett

2006-12-19 08:19:15 UTC

Post by Mike
Well, is he the father? There is a presumption of paternity if they
were married but what if she had an affair? What about the mother who
hasn't the faintest idea who the father is, just that it must be one of
half a dozen (or more) men. Should she just pick one at random or
choose the one most likely to have a decent income? How about picking
just any man?

In those circumstances, a DNA test would easily establish whether the
man named was actually the baby's father.

--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

Cynic

2006-12-19 15:12:09 UTC

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 21:23:37 +0000, Richard Miller

Post by Richard Miller
Burden of proof is irrelevant to this issue. Is he the father? Yes/no.
If yes, the money is due. End of.

Hmmm. Whilst that may be the case most of the time, I do not agree
that it is that black & white. What if the mother has taken up with
another man who has taken over the role of father, and the biological
father has been excluded? What if the mother is in a position to
supply all the needs of herself and her children quite comfortably,
whilst the father is struggling to survive on minimum wage?

As an extreme example - the woman deserts her loving and caring
husband for a multi-millionaire. They move hundreds of miles away,
making regular contact between the father and his children impossible.
The father earns very little even though holding down two jobs, and
struggles to pay the bills. Every holiday the children are given the
choice between staying with their father in his run-down bedsit, or
going on an exotic foreign holiday with mum and stepdad. So the
father loses out. Do you feel it right that the father should be made
to pay more than he can afford to "support" children that he has
little hope of having any relationship with, when the money is not
needed at all, and in fact comes to about as much as the woman tips
her hairdresser each week?

--
Cynic

Richard Miller

2006-12-19 19:18:16 UTC

Post by Cynic
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 21:23:37 +0000, Richard Miller

Post by Richard Miller
Burden of proof is irrelevant to this issue. Is he the father? Yes/no.
If yes, the money is due. End of.

Hmmm. Whilst that may be the case most of the time, I do not agree
that it is that black & white. What if the mother has taken up with
another man who has taken over the role of father, and the biological
father has been excluded? What if the mother is in a position to
supply all the needs of herself and her children quite comfortably,
whilst the father is struggling to survive on minimum wage?
As an extreme example - the woman deserts her loving and caring
husband for a multi-millionaire. They move hundreds of miles away,
making regular contact between the father and his children impossible.
The father earns very little even though holding down two jobs, and
struggles to pay the bills. Every holiday the children are given the
choice between staying with their father in his run-down bedsit, or
going on an exotic foreign holiday with mum and stepdad. So the
father loses out. Do you feel it right that the father should be made
to pay more than he can afford to "support" children that he has
little hope of having any relationship with, when the money is not
needed at all, and in fact comes to about as much as the woman tips
her hairdresser each week?

Emotive claptrap. I expect better from you, Cynic. Everything you say
here is only an issue about what the system should be and how much
should be required by way of child support. It has nothing whatsoever to
do with the question whether confiscation of passport and driving
licence are an appropriate measure to enforce payment of maintenance
once the assessment has been made.

--
Richard Miller

Cynic

2006-12-20 01:26:35 UTC

On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 19:18:16 +0000, Richard Miller

Post by Cynic
As an extreme example - the woman deserts her loving and caring
husband for a multi-millionaire. They move hundreds of miles away,
making regular contact between the father and his children impossible.
The father earns very little even though holding down two jobs, and
struggles to pay the bills. Every holiday the children are given the
choice between staying with their father in his run-down bedsit, or
going on an exotic foreign holiday with mum and stepdad. So the
father loses out. Do you feel it right that the father should be made
to pay more than he can afford to "support" children that he has
little hope of having any relationship with, when the money is not
needed at all, and in fact comes to about as much as the woman tips
her hairdresser each week?

Emotive claptrap. I expect better from you, Cynic.

Sorry - it was not *intended* to be emotive at all. I was looking at
the situation from the POV of what is or is not *just*.

The law as it stands IIUC takes no account whatsoever of the
circumstances. If the man is the father, he pays.

IMO the law should attempt to follow the *moral* position as far as
possible, unless it conflicts with the practical issues, in which case
it should take a pragmatic stance.

Here's what I feel about the moral position wrt *financial*
responsibility:

Firstly, with medical science what it is, there is no need to have a
baby at all if it is not wanted. My position is that if one partner
wants the child and the other does not, the person who insists on
having the baby should bear *all* responsibility for the child
(obviously in practise this will almost always be the mother).

In the event that both parents wanted the child, my argument is that
this is almost always on the understanding that both parents will take
part in raising the child as a family, and both will be a major
influence in the child's life. If one of the parents thought that
they were to be excluded almost entirely from their child's life, I
doubt they would have agreed to conceive the child in the first place.

If therefore one parent unilaterally decides to split up and remove
the child from the care and influence of the other, then the
"contract" is broken, and the defaulting parent must take on all the
financial responsibility for the child's upbringing.

If a 3rd party comes along and takes on the role of parent to the
child(ren), then IMO that person should also take on the financial
burden as well.

Post by Richard Miller
Everything you say
here is only an issue about what the system should be and how much
should be required by way of child support.

Yes - that was all I intended to comment on - just your bald
statement.

Post by Richard Miller
It has nothing whatsoever to
do with the question whether confiscation of passport and driving
licence are an appropriate measure to enforce payment of maintenance
once the assessment has been made.

I am in principle against that measure unless it were to be available
in general for all outstanding debts where there has been a legal or
quasi-legal decision as to repayment terms for the debt. After all,
the children of a man who cannot afford to provide for them because
his customer has defaulted on paying him what he is owed suffer just
as much as the children of a father who is not paying maintainance.

--
Cynic

Mike

2006-12-20 10:33:54 UTC

Post by Cynic
I am in principle against that measure unless it were to be available
in general for all outstanding debts where there has been a legal or
quasi-legal decision as to repayment terms for the debt. After all,
the children of a man who cannot afford to provide for them because
his customer has defaulted on paying him what he is owed suffer just
as much as the children of a father who is not paying maintainance.

That's fair enough. The proposed penalties aren't that far off
re-introducing debtors' prisons but, if penalties are to be
introduced, they should apply to all debts.

That still leaves the question of standard of proof for a civil debt.
Should it be raised to BRD or, perhaps, there could be two types of
debt - those where penalties can be imposed for default (with a BRD
standard for liability) and those where penalties cannot (with a BoP
standard).

--
Mike

c***@hushmail.com

2006-12-20 16:47:02 UTC

Post by Cynic
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 19:18:16 +0000, Richard Miller

Emotive claptrap. I expect better from you, Cynic.

Not "in practice", "almost always". Always, pure and simple. A man can
put on his trousers and be done with the baby. A woman cannot - 9
months et cetera. There is no way a man can bear *all* responsibility
even if he wanted to - while a woman can.

Post by Cynic
In the event that both parents wanted the child, my argument is that
this is almost always on the understanding that both parents will take
part in raising the child as a family, and both will be a major
influence in the child's life. If one of the parents thought that
they were to be excluded almost entirely from their child's life, I
doubt they would have agreed to conceive the child in the first place.

Which I suspect - I suspect that there are considerable number of
parents who agree to bear their share of responsibility with
reluctance, and would be glad to be relieved of that.

Post by Cynic
If therefore one parent unilaterally decides to split up and remove
the child from the care and influence of the other, then the
"contract" is broken, and the defaulting parent must take on all the
financial responsibility for the child's upbringing.
If a 3rd party comes along and takes on the role of parent to the
child(ren), then IMO that person should also take on the financial
burden as well.

Is a child an asset or a liability?

If a parent defaults on the contract, should the defaulting parent/s
compensate 3rd parties for their role in being parents?

Post by Richard Miller
Everything you say
here is only an issue about what the system should be and how much
should be required by way of child support.

Yes - that was all I intended to comment on - just your bald
statement.

If children are assets, does it mean that if a family suffers general
default (cannot pay their debts to creditors, for example because they
in their turn are not receiving what is owed to them), should the
children be included in the bankrupt estate and auctioned off to
highest bidding 3rd parties, to discharge debts owed to others?

Cynic

2006-12-20 18:27:07 UTC

Post by Cynic
Here's what I feel about the moral position wrt *financial*
Firstly, with medical science what it is, there is no need to have a
baby at all if it is not wanted. My position is that if one partner
wants the child and the other does not, the person who insists on
having the baby should bear *all* responsibility for the child
(obviously in practise this will almost always be the mother).

Read the first sentence quoted above. The word you ignored is between
the two astericks.

Which I suspect - I suspect that there are considerable number of
parents who agree to bear their share of responsibility with
reluctance, and would be glad to be relieved of that.

Yes, many people would like all the pleasure and none of the
responsibility in quite a number of things. Most however are prepared
to take on the responsibility if they can have the benefits.

Is a child an asset or a liability?

In a purely financial sense a child in the Western world is a
liability. you will spend a great deal of money raising a child and
are unlikely to see a return on your investment.

Post by c***@hushmail.com
If a parent defaults on the contract, should the defaulting parent/s
compensate 3rd parties for their role in being parents?

Only if they *asked* the 3rd party to take on that role.

Post by c***@hushmail.com
If children are assets, does it mean that if a family suffers general
default (cannot pay their debts to creditors, for example because they
in their turn are not receiving what is owed to them), should the
children be included in the bankrupt estate and auctioned off to
highest bidding 3rd parties, to discharge debts owed to others?

As I said, financially children are liabilities. I have only been
discussing the *financial* side of things, because that is all that is
relevant to an estranged parent who is made to pay child support.

There are of course a heck of a lot of other facets to the issue of
children in general, and certainly they should not be treated as
property.

--
Cynic

c***@hushmail.com

2006-12-21 17:39:55 UTC

Read the first sentence quoted above. The word you ignored is between
the two astericks.

But how do you separate *financial* responsibility from other
responsibility?

A woman can put on her dress, walk away with baby and be absolutely
sure that her financial responsibilities are exactly 100 %, not 99 % or
101 %. But how do you assign a fair *financial* value to being a
mother? How can a man be sure whether what he pays her actually
represents 50 % of the costs incurred, or 10 %, or 90 %, or 110 %, or
150 %, or 1000 %?

Which I suspect - I suspect that there are considerable number of
parents who agree to bear their share of responsibility with
reluctance, and would be glad to be relieved of that.

Yes, many people would like all the pleasure and none of the
responsibility in quite a number of things. Most however are prepared
to take on the responsibility if they can have the benefits.

But how many would be willing to give up the benefits if they thereby
are free of the responsibility?

Is a child an asset or a liability?

In a purely financial sense a child in the Western world is a
liability. you will spend a great deal of money raising a child and
are unlikely to see a return on your investment.

Post by c***@hushmail.com
If a parent defaults on the contract, should the defaulting parent/s
compensate 3rd parties for their role in being parents?

Only if they *asked* the 3rd party to take on that role.

Does *defaulting* in the first place qualify as *asking* anyone who is
able and willing?

As I said, financially children are liabilities. I have only been
discussing the *financial* side of things, because that is all that is
relevant to an estranged parent who is made to pay child support.
There are of course a heck of a lot of other facets to the issue of
children in general, and certainly they should not be treated as
property.

So, if they are liabilities, they should be discharged along with all
other debts in case of bankruptcy?

Alan Holmes

2006-12-23 18:27:04 UTC

Post by Cynic
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 19:18:16 +0000, Richard Miller

Emotive claptrap. I expect better from you, Cynic.

Sorry - it was not *intended* to be emotive at all. I was looking at
the situation from the POV of what is or is not *just*.
The law as it stands IIUC takes no account whatsoever of the
circumstances. If the man is the father, he pays.
IMO the law should attempt to follow the *moral* position as far as
possible, unless it conflicts with the practical issues, in which case
it should take a pragmatic stance.
Here's what I feel about the moral position wrt *financial*
Firstly, with medical science what it is, there is no need to have a
baby at all if it is not wanted. My position is that if one partner
wants the child and the other does not, the person who insists on
having the baby should bear *all* responsibility for the child
(obviously in practise this will almost always be the mother).
In the event that both parents wanted the child, my argument is that
this is almost always on the understanding that both parents will take
part in raising the child as a family, and both will be a major
influence in the child's life. If one of the parents thought that
they were to be excluded almost entirely from their child's life, I
doubt they would have agreed to conceive the child in the first place.
If therefore one parent unilaterally decides to split up and remove
the child from the care and influence of the other, then the
"contract" is broken, and the defaulting parent must take on all the
financial responsibility for the child's upbringing.
If a 3rd party comes along and takes on the role of parent to the
child(ren), then IMO that person should also take on the financial
burden as well.

Post by Richard Miller
Everything you say
here is only an issue about what the system should be and how much
should be required by way of child support.

Yes - that was all I intended to comment on - just your bald
statement.

I'd go along with all the above.

Alan

JaggedofCanaria

2006-12-13 13:25:51 UTC

Who indeed? I imagine that there a few people who skip the country to
avoid paying maintenance. If your job relies on a passport or driving
licence then the ability to pay is removed. So how exactly does this help?

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Richard Miller

2006-12-14 21:23:07 UTC

Post by JaggedofCanaria

Who indeed? I imagine that there a few people who skip the country to
avoid paying maintenance.

But there are plenty who go on holidays abroad rather than pay
maintenance.

Post by JaggedofCanaria
If your job relies on a passport or driving
licence then the ability to pay is removed. So how exactly does this help?

It's a power, not a mandatory penalty. So if there were reasons like
that for not imposing the penalty, it need not be imposed. In any event,
the easy answer is, pay what you owe.

--
Richard Miller

Paul Hyett

2006-12-15 09:08:07 UTC

In uk.legal on Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Richard Miller

Post by JaggedofCanaria
If your job relies on a passport or driving
licence then the ability to pay is removed. So how exactly does this help?

It's a power, not a mandatory penalty. So if there were reasons like
that for not imposing the penalty, it need not be imposed.

ISTM it's intended as a threat - the issue being whether the non-payer
would rather lose their entire livelihood, or their monthly
child-support cheque.

IMO though, if they're irresponsible enough to choose the former, then
even stronger sanctions should be available.

For example, deny them any dole money, or indeed any form of welfare
payments* - a few months in cardboard box city ought to teach them a
thing or two!

* That's better than throwing them in jail, since the taxpayer would
have to cough up for them, then.

--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

JaggedofCanaria

2006-12-15 12:43:42 UTC

Post by JaggedofCanaria
Who indeed? I imagine that there a few people who skip the country to
avoid paying maintenance.

But there are plenty who go on holidays abroad rather than pay
maintenance.

Sadly probably true...

Post by JaggedofCanaria
If your job relies on a passport or driving
licence then the ability to pay is removed. So how exactly does this help?

It's a power, not a mandatory penalty. So if there were reasons like
that for not imposing the penalty, it need not be imposed. In any event,
the easy answer is, pay what you owe.

Yes I realise that, but I'm not convinced that its a power that has been
terribly well thought out. I can imagine that there may well be an initial
"show of strength" in the early days where this power will be used
indiscriminately, to messy consequences. I've never quite worked out why
it is apparently so difficult to dock wages at source, or use existing
debt recovery mechanisms. As for your last sentence - well yes, I have no
sympathy for those who refuse to pay for their child(ren). As I stated in
a previous thread I pay far in excess of what the CSA would assess me for,
in essence I pay based on my *real* ability to do so.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Richard

2006-12-15 13:49:34 UTC

Post by JaggedofCanaria

Post by JaggedofCanaria
If your job relies on a passport or driving
licence then the ability to pay is removed. So how exactly does this help?

It's a power, not a mandatory penalty. So if there were reasons like
that for not imposing the penalty, it need not be imposed. In any event,
the easy answer is, pay what you owe.

That tends to be true of all laws, but once the message gets out that
you can't evade your responsibilities, hopefully payment rates will go
up significantly and everyone will be better off.

I've never quite worked out why

Post by JaggedofCanaria
it is apparently so difficult to dock wages at source, or use existing
debt recovery mechanisms.

You would have thought it should be possible, wouldn't you, but there
seem to be all sorts of mechanisms used to hide assets or put them
beyond easy reach. Be self-employed, always keep your bank account
overdrawn, hide assets overseas, and probably many more besides.

Post by JaggedofCanaria
As for your last sentence - well yes, I have no
sympathy for those who refuse to pay for their child(ren). As I stated in
a previous thread I pay far in excess of what the CSA would assess me for,
in essence I pay based on my *real* ability to do so.

Sadly, this thread demonstrates that many men condone or positively
support men avoiding their responsibilities.

Richard Miller

Alan Holmes

2006-12-15 20:18:06 UTC

Post by JaggedofCanaria

Post by JaggedofCanaria
If your job relies on a passport or driving
licence then the ability to pay is removed. So how exactly does this help?

It's a power, not a mandatory penalty. So if there were reasons like
that for not imposing the penalty, it need not be imposed. In any event,
the easy answer is, pay what you owe.

Post by JaggedofCanaria
it is apparently so difficult to dock wages at source, or use existing
debt recovery mechanisms.

Sadly, this thread demonstrates that many men condone or positively
support men avoiding their responsibilities.

This one doesn't but he does object to women depriving the fathers of
contact with their chidren, in which case they should not be forced to
support them.

Post by Richard
Richard Miller

Damot

2006-12-13 13:36:14 UTC

Erm, that's pretty obvious isn't it? It's designed to persuade them to
except their responsibilities. If you can afford holidays and a car
then why the hell aren't you paying for your offspring?

ABC

2006-12-13 13:43:13 UTC

Erm, that's pretty obvious isn't it? It's designed to persuade them to
except their responsibilities. If you can afford holidays and a car
then why the hell aren't you paying for your offspring?

A lot of the cases that the CSA were dealing with, was where the father was
already paying maintainence from an amicible arrangement but the CSA
demanded more and more money without looking and the fathers outgoings.

For years, people have been saying that the CSA has "backed-tracked" on its
original idea to trace non-payment fathers because is its so easy to hound
fathers who are already paying maintainence.

Richard Miller

2006-12-14 21:27:47 UTC

Erm, that's pretty obvious isn't it? It's designed to persuade them to
except their responsibilities. If you can afford holidays and a car
then why the hell aren't you paying for your offspring?

Tough. The kid comes first. Outgoings come next, and must be tailored to
the circumstances.

The one thing that was a genuine and outrageous injustice was where the
CSA imposed demands for maintenance on fathers who had given property
worth tens of thousands of pounds to their ex in lieu of child
maintenance. The Courts refused to let them re-open those agreements
even when the CSA imposed demands for thousands of pounds on them that
should never have been sought.

Post by ABC
For years, people have been saying that the CSA has "backed-tracked" on its
original idea to trace non-payment fathers because is its so easy to hound
fathers who are already paying maintainence.

The CSA's original ideas were first to stop parents reaching a mutual
agreement under which no maintenance was paid and the mother stayed on
benefits, and secondly to kick lawyers and the Courts out of the process
because they were supposedly too slow and inefficient in getting
maintenance sorted out. Turns out we were actually paragons of speed and
efficiency.

It all looks like a sick joke now. And the worst of it is, the
Government was repeatedly warned before its introduction of the disaster
they were creating.

--
Richard Miller

History

2006-12-15 08:27:29 UTC

Guy at work gave his house to his ex so his kids had a home to live in, but
still has to pay maintainence, he realises he messed up by not making it
official though.

Erm, that's pretty obvious isn't it? It's designed to persuade them to
except their responsibilities. If you can afford holidays and a car
then why the hell aren't you paying for your offspring?

Tough. The kid comes first. Outgoings come next, and must be tailored to
the circumstances.
The one thing that was a genuine and outrageous injustice was where the
CSA imposed demands for maintenance on fathers who had given property
worth tens of thousands of pounds to their ex in lieu of child
maintenance. The Courts refused to let them re-open those agreements even
when the CSA imposed demands for thousands of pounds on them that should
never have been sought.

The CSA's original ideas were first to stop parents reaching a mutual
agreement under which no maintenance was paid and the mother stayed on
benefits, and secondly to kick lawyers and the Courts out of the process
because they were supposedly too slow and inefficient in getting
maintenance sorted out. Turns out we were actually paragons of speed and
efficiency.
It all looks like a sick joke now. And the worst of it is, the Government
was repeatedly warned before its introduction of the disaster they were
creating.
--
Richard Miller

Alan Holmes

2006-12-13 23:28:45 UTC

Erm, that's pretty obvious isn't it? It's designed to persuade them to
except their responsibilities. If you can afford holidays and a car
then why the hell aren't you paying for your offspring?

Perhaps because they were denied access to their children.

Alan

Adam

2006-12-13 13:47:14 UTC

As for who dreams up these things, I think that's pretty clear: the
government's Department of Half-Baked Headline-Grabbing Schemes. You know,
the same people who had the plan about marching hoodies to cashpoints so
they could pay their on-the-spot fines.

More worrying, if this is true (this is what I heard on the radio this
morning so I suppose it might not be), is that the plan is that the
documents will be confiscated in the say-so of some agency without any
proper court proceedings. Does anyone know if that is true? Does anyone
agree with me that, if true, that's crossing a dangerous line?

Adam

Mike Ross

2006-12-13 14:38:42 UTC

Quite. I read this and was going to post myself, if no-one else did
first. They're also talking about imposing curfews, confiscating money
direct from wages and bank accounts, and having first dibs at the
absent parents estate should they die. And adding the costs of taking
these actions to the debt. And yes, they're removing the need to get a
court order before doing these things - see:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6174671.stm

Bloody hell... ok parents should pay for the upbringing of their kids
but this is beyond extreme... why not go the whole hog and impose
control orders? It sounds like they're half way there already.

I'm especially concerned about the driving license thing - a driving
license is a certificate allowing you to exercise the freedom to
drive, having shown you're fit to do so by passing a test. You should
only have it taken away if you've proved yourself unfit to drive by
driving badly. This moves it to the state graciously giving you
permission to drive a car, and asserting the right to take that
permission away for whatever reason they fancy - a big change in the
balance of power.

As for the passport thing - EU free movement laws? This carries
disturbing echos of Soviet-style population control and 'exit visas' -
needing to satisfy the state before they graciously give you
permission to LEAVE the country. I'm glad I've already left it - the
ship is leaving the sinking rats.

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'

Bert

2006-12-13 17:49:45 UTC

I wonder if they will do the same to parents who refuse access?

allan tracy

2006-12-13 18:05:58 UTC

I would go further for those women that refuse to name the father or
just don't know compulsory DNA sample then consult the database.

Track the bugger down that way.

Even if it turns out the mother was a prostitute and he was a client
then tough - you still get to cough up and, of course, no access.

Cynic

2006-12-13 20:58:00 UTC

On 13 Dec 2006 10:05:58 -0800, "allan tracy"

Post by allan tracy
I would go further for those women that refuse to name the father or
just don't know compulsory DNA sample then consult the database.

You cannot use a DNA database in that way. It can only be used to
*disprove* paternity in any individual, and to find who was the father
from a *small* list of suspected fathers.

Post by allan tracy
Track the bugger down that way.
Even if it turns out the mother was a prostitute and he was a client
then tough - you still get to cough up and, of course, no access.

Why would you want to deny a child the right to have contact with
his/her father?

--
Cynic

Alan Holmes

2006-12-13 23:30:54 UTC

Post by allan tracy
Even if it turns out the mother was a prostitute and he was a client
then tough - you still get to cough up and, of course, no access.

Why would you want to deny a child the right to have contact with
his/her father?

My Grandmother did for her own selfish reasons!

Alan

Jethro

2006-12-14 08:50:13 UTC

Post by Cynic
On 13 Dec 2006 10:05:58 -0800, "allan tracy"

Post by allan tracy
I would go further for those women that refuse to name the father or
just don't know compulsory DNA sample then consult the database.

You cannot use a DNA database in that way. It can only be used to
*disprove* paternity in any individual, and to find who was the father
from a *small* list of suspected fathers.

This is what is worrying me so much about all the half-arsed ideas
coming out of government. I suspect that many MPs *are* under the
impression you could use a DNA database that way, like this poster.

Many people simple don't understand the science (I struggle myself :-)
)and are being sold a pup.

Alan Holmes

2006-12-13 23:27:01 UTC

If some fathers are denied access to their children, will they be penalised
for withholding payments?

ian henden

2006-12-14 08:21:18 UTC

So a lorry driver, bus driver, taxi driver, etc. will REALLY be able to
afford maintenance when he can't work!!

Alan Holmes

2006-12-14 15:47:58 UTC

Post by ian henden

So a lorry driver, bus driver, taxi driver, etc. will REALLY be able to
afford maintenance when he can't work!!

You didn't reaslly expect politicions to have a brain, did you?

Alan

Richard Miller

2006-12-14 21:19:48 UTC

What it has got to do with it is that the stingy bastards might actually
pay up for their kids if they lose things that matter to them, saving
you and me and every other taxpayer significant sums of money and making
life better for the kid(s).

I'm 100% for this.

--
Richard Miller

Steve Robinson

2006-12-14 22:32:21 UTC

Post by Stuart
See there is a suggestion that non paying fathers might have their
passports or driving licenses impounded .
Who dreams up these things .What has that got to do with renaging
on maintenance payments .

What it has got to do with it is that the stingy bastards might
actually pay up for their kids if they lose things that matter to
them, saving you and me and every other taxpayer significant sums of
money and making life better for the kid(s).
I'm 100% for this.

do they honestly think taking a driving licence away will prevent them
from driving

passpport removal will be challenged as its removal prevents free
movement around europe

--

Paul Hyett

2006-12-15 09:08:07 UTC

In uk.legal on Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Steve Robinson

Post by Steve Robinson
do they honestly think taking a driving licence away will prevent them
from driving

Then they'll end up with a criminal record (assuming they haven't
already got one).

Post by Steve Robinson
passpport removal will be challenged as its removal prevents free
movement around europe

Add this to the million & one other reasons to leave the EU!

Besides, I thought you weren't supposed to need one to move between EU
countries?

--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

Richard Miller

2006-12-15 19:34:01 UTC

Post by Steve Robinson

Post by Stuart
See there is a suggestion that non paying fathers might have their
passports or driving licenses impounded .
Who dreams up these things .What has that got to do with renaging
on maintenance payments .

What it has got to do with it is that the stingy bastards might
actually pay up for their kids if they lose things that matter to
them, saving you and me and every other taxpayer significant sums of
money and making life better for the kid(s).
I'm 100% for this.

do they honestly think taking a driving licence away will prevent them
from driving

No, they honestly think that taking a driving licence away will prevent
them from ignoring their responsibilities. If they then want to go on to
commit criminal offences as well as evading their legal and moral
responsibilities, that is a risk they can choose to take, but they can
hardly complain if they then end up with a criminal record as well as a
debt.

Post by Steve Robinson
passpport removal will be challenged as its removal prevents free
movement around europe

No it doesn't. All they have to do is meet their legal responsibilities.
Therefore no infringement. And if they can afford to go abroad, they can
afford to cough up what their kids need.

I bet you also rave against single mothers and their offspring. Do you
ever stop to look at the link between fuckwit men that you are
supporting and their kids growing up in poverty and getting involved in
crime and anti-social behaviour?

--
Richard Miller

Alan Holmes

2006-12-15 23:26:08 UTC

Post by Richard Miller
I bet you also rave against single mothers and their offspring.

I do if the have created children for the sole purpose of getting free
housing and food and cigarettes.

Alan

Steve Robinson

2006-12-16 10:07:12 UTC

Post by Steve Robinson

Post by Stuart
See there is a suggestion that non paying fathers might have their
passports or driving licenses impounded .
Who dreams up these things .What has that got to do with renaging
on maintenance payments .

What it has got to do with it is that the stingy bastards might
actually pay up for their kids if they lose things that matter to
them, saving you and me and every other taxpayer significant sums
of money and making life better for the kid(s).
I'm 100% for this.

do they honestly think taking a driving licence away will prevent
them from driving

No, they honestly think that taking a driving licence away will
prevent them from ignoring their responsibilities. If they then want
to go on to commit criminal offences as well as evading their legal
and moral responsibilities, that is a risk they can choose to take,
but they can hardly complain if they then end up with a criminal
record as well as a debt.

Post by Steve Robinson
passpport removal will be challenged as its removal prevents free
movement around europe

No it doesn't. All they have to do is meet their legal
responsibilities. Therefore no infringement. And if they can afford
to go abroad, they can afford to cough up what their kids need.
I bet you also rave against single mothers and their offspring. Do
you ever stop to look at the link between fuckwit men that you are
supporting and their kids growing up in poverty and getting involved
in crime and anti-social behaviour?

No i dont i just think the laws they are bringing in are a kneejerk
reaction that will not work , and are likely to have the exact opposite
effect that they intended , it will increase tension between parents in
both the old relationships and the new which is not good for anyone

--

banjo

2006-12-16 10:09:11 UTC

--
X-No-Archive: yes

Post by Stuart
See there is a suggestion that non paying fathers might have their
passports or driving licenses impounded .
Who dreams up these things .What has that got to do with renaging
on maintenance payments .

What it has got to do with it is that the stingy bastards might
actually pay up for their kids if they lose things that matter to
them, saving you and me and every other taxpayer significant sums
of money

snipped

saving you and me and every other taxpayer significant sums
of money ?

i dont think it will save the taxpayer any money at all.

would the cost of taxes and duty go down in what you pay?
"no" the goverment will just filter it off into something ealse.

Richard Miller

2006-12-16 18:27:48 UTC

Post by Richard Miller
saving you and me and every other taxpayer significant sums
of money ?

Yes.

Post by Richard Miller
i dont think it will save the taxpayer any money at all.
would the cost of taxes and duty go down in what you pay?
"no" the goverment will just filter it off into something ealse.

In that case, I get better services for the same taxes, rather than
lower taxes. Either way, I win. And you win. And everyone reading this
thread wins.

--
Richard Miller

Alan Holmes

2006-12-14 23:18:11 UTC

What it has got to do with it is that the stingy bastards might actually
pay up for their kids if they lose things that matter to them, saving you
and me and every other taxpayer significant sums of money and making life
better for the kid(s).

And what about those who are denighed access to their children?

Post by Richard Miller
I'm 100% for this.
--
Richard Miller

History

2006-12-15 08:28:24 UTC

Refuse to pay then pay £500 for a fake passport.

What it has got to do with it is that the stingy bastards might actually
pay up for their kids if they lose things that matter to them, saving you
and me and every other taxpayer significant sums of money and making life
better for the kid(s).

And what about those who are denighed access to their children?

Post by Richard Miller
I'm 100% for this.
--
Richard Miller

Richard Miller

2006-12-15 19:36:34 UTC

What it has got to do with it is that the stingy bastards might actually
pay up for their kids if they lose things that matter to them, saving you
and me and every other taxpayer significant sums of money and making life
better for the kid(s).

And what about those who are denighed access to their children?

Why should the child suffer?

If there is a contact order in place and the mother is breaching it -
and it has to be a complete and continuing breach, not just a one-off,
kid didn't make it this time - then there is a case for suspending
liability for maintenance payments: indeed, that could be part of the
penalty for the breach. In no other situation is it justified.

--
Richard Miller

Alan Holmes

2006-12-15 23:27:15 UTC

What it has got to do with it is that the stingy bastards might actually
pay up for their kids if they lose things that matter to them, saving you
and me and every other taxpayer significant sums of money and making life
better for the kid(s).

And what about those who are denighed access to their children?

Why should the child suffer?

The children are suffering because of the attitude of the mothers.

Post by Richard Miller
If there is a contact order in place and the mother is breaching it - and
it has to be a complete and continuing breach, not just a one-off, kid
didn't make it this time - then there is a case for suspending liability
for maintenance payments: indeed, that could be part of the penalty for
the breach. In no other situation is it justified.

Correct!

Post by Richard Miller
--
Richard Miller

Richard Miller

2006-12-15 23:38:12 UTC

What it has got to do with it is that the stingy bastards might actually
pay up for their kids if they lose things that matter to them, saving you
and me and every other taxpayer significant sums of money and making life
better for the kid(s).

And what about those who are denighed access to their children?

Why should the child suffer?

The children are suffering because of the attitude of the mothers.

OK. So why should they suffer further by being plunged even deeper into
poverty and having it proved to them that their father does not give a
stuff about them?

Correct!

I bet that surprised you!

--
Richard Miller

Alan Holmes

2006-12-16 18:12:44 UTC

What it has got to do with it is that the stingy bastards might actually
pay up for their kids if they lose things that matter to them, saving you
and me and every other taxpayer significant sums of money and making life
better for the kid(s).

And what about those who are denighed access to their children?

Why should the child suffer?

The children are suffering because of the attitude of the mothers.

OK. So why should they suffer further by being plunged even deeper into
poverty and having it proved to them that their father does not give a
stuff about them?

The fathers do care about them it is the mothers who refuse access to the
children.

Correct!

I bet that surprised you!

It did, but we have get to see it happen!

Alan

Post by Richard Miller
--
Richard Miller

Richard Miller

2006-12-16 18:52:08 UTC

Post by Alan Holmes
And what about those who are denighed access to their children?

Why should the child suffer?

The children are suffering because of the attitude of the mothers.

OK. So why should they suffer further by being plunged even deeper into
poverty and having it proved to them that their father does not give a
stuff about them?

The fathers do care about them it is the mothers who refuse access to
the children.

I agree with you that mothers who deny access in the face of a contact
order are damaging the kids. But I have seen too many examples of
fathers claiming to be wronged when in fact they are either extremely
violent or have been given plenty of opportunities for contact but have
messed about and failed to take them up that I tend to be rather
sceptical of any such claims. I have seen more mothers asking me how to
make the father take a greater interest in having contact with the kids
than I have mothers wanting to exclude the kids.

In the main example I can think of of the latter, there was no evidence
to back up the mother's concerns that the father's behaviour towards his
daughter seemed inappropriate. I explained how the Courts would view the
situation and the limited chances of excluding the father. The mother
accepted the position and agreed to regular contact. A year later, the
father, in his 40s, was done for having sex with (an unrelated) 12 year
old girl.

But the bottom line is, if the father cares for his kids, he should pay
for their upkeep, regardless of whether he is getting to see them or
not. It's not like paying the lease on a car and not being allowed to
run it; or paying the rent on a flat and not being allowed to live in
it. This is a living, breathing, vulnerable human being for whom you
have a legal responsibility until they are at least 16 years of age.

--
Richard Miller

Adam

2006-12-15 09:11:27 UTC

"Richard Miller" <***@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:JDXOEOQ0>

Post by Richard Miller
I'm 100% for this.
--

What, even without some kind of due process?

Richard

2006-12-15 13:52:32 UTC

Post by Adam
news:JDXOEOQ0>

Post by Richard Miller
I'm 100% for this.
--

What, even without some kind of due process?

What makes you claim there will not be some form of due process?

Richard Miller

Adam

2006-12-16 14:51:16 UTC

Post by Adam
news:JDXOEOQ0>

Post by Richard Miller
I'm 100% for this.
--

What, even without some kind of due process?

What makes you claim there will not be some form of due process?

When I heard about this story on Radio 4 they said that the documents would
be confiscated on the say-so of the CSA (or whatever agency is replacing
them) without having to go to court. Is that true?

Steve Robinson

2006-12-16 14:58:38 UTC

Post by Adam

Post by Adam
news:JDXOEOQ0>

Post by Richard Miller
I'm 100% for this.
--

What, even without some kind of due process?

What makes you claim there will not be some form of due process?

When I heard about this story on Radio 4 they said that the documents
would be confiscated on the say-so of the CSA (or whatever agency is
replacing them) without having to go to court. Is that true?

I dont think all the legislation is in place yet so no one knows
exactly whats going to happen , however if they do go down the path
suggested then i can see a HR issue arrissing i can also see problems
with people just saying that they never recieved the paperwork if it
went down that pathway

--

Richard Miller

2006-12-16 18:30:51 UTC

Post by Adam

Post by Adam
news:JDXOEOQ0>

Post by Richard Miller
I'm 100% for this.
--

What, even without some kind of due process?

What makes you claim there will not be some form of due process?

When I heard about this story on Radio 4 they said that the documents would
be confiscated on the say-so of the CSA (or whatever agency is replacing
them) without having to go to court. Is that true?

It may be. But that is not necessarily the same as lack of due process.
First, there will be a process that has to be gone through before they
can confiscate. Secondly there will have to be an appeals process.
Thirdly, there will have to be a right to involve the Court, even if
only by judicial review.

Moreover, whatever is being said now, it has to get through Parliament,
and the Lords in particular are very hot on ensuring that there are
proper processes in place. Given how strong the anti-CSA lobby has been,
I don't doubt for a moment that this issue will be well aired.

--
Richard Miller

Mike Ross

2006-12-16 20:37:35 UTC

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 18:30:51 +0000, Richard Miller

Post by Adam
When I heard about this story on Radio 4 they said that the documents would
be confiscated on the say-so of the CSA (or whatever agency is replacing
them) without having to go to court. Is that true?

Question is, what will the sanctions be if you refuse to surrender
your license/passport for confiscation? And another thought - the
proposal is, AFAIK, simply for the agency to have the power to
confiscate peoples driving licenses (and passports)- AFAIK there's no
mention of a power *banning them driving* (the two are NOT the same
thing). (or indeed *banning them from leaving the country*)

I haven't heard anything that suggests you would be unable to reapply
immediately for a replacement license/passport either.

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'

archierob

2006-12-17 01:09:40 UTC

I guess I would not have not payed if I was kicked out of my own house
because she was being shagged by her new lover but knew that because
she had your kids she would not lose a thing. I think I would be as
mad as hell when I had worked all Gods hours to keep thing afloat
whilst she was being shagged by her new love and I was being taken for
an absolute idiot.
Hypothetical of course!

Richard Miller

2006-12-17 09:10:32 UTC

Post by archierob
I guess I would not have not payed if I was kicked out of my own house
because she was being shagged by her new lover but knew that because
she had your kids she would not lose a thing. I think I would be as
mad as hell when I had worked all Gods hours to keep thing afloat
whilst she was being shagged by her new love and I was being taken for
an absolute idiot.
Hypothetical of course!

Yeah, so you would do serious harm to your own kids instead.

Well, I suppose that at least unlike some men, you didn't decide that
killing the kids was an appropriate way to punish her.

--
Richard Miller

Alan Holmes

2006-12-17 16:20:35 UTC

Yeah, so you would do serious harm to your own kids instead.

Or the father could bring them up on his own!

Post by Richard Miller
Well, I suppose that at least unlike some men, you didn't decide that
killing the kids was an appropriate way to punish her.

If she were to be deprived of her children that would be a better outcome.

Alan

Richard Miller

2006-12-17 18:06:06 UTC

Yeah, so you would do serious harm to your own kids instead.

Or the father could bring them up on his own!

Post by Richard Miller
Well, I suppose that at least unlike some men, you didn't decide that
killing the kids was an appropriate way to punish her.

If she were to be deprived of her children that would be a better outcome.

That would be a better outcome? In every such case, it would be better
for the children to be brought up by their father? I would hesitate long
and hard before making such sweeping statements.

*If* in addition to all the above the mother was excluding the father
from the children's lives for no valid reason, then that *may well* be
the better outcome. Otherwise, I suspect that it would rarely even be
practical, let alone better, for the children to be brought up by a
father having to fit them around his work schedule and get child minders
in most of the time than to live with a mother working not at all or
part time only.

--
Richard Miller

Alan Holmes

2006-12-17 23:32:14 UTC

Yeah, so you would do serious harm to your own kids instead.

Or the father could bring them up on his own!

Post by Richard Miller
Well, I suppose that at least unlike some men, you didn't decide that
killing the kids was an appropriate way to punish her.

If she were to be deprived of her children that would be a better outcome.

That would be a better outcome? In every such case, it would be better for
the children to be brought up by their father? I would hesitate long and
hard before making such sweeping statements.
*If* in addition to all the above the mother was excluding the father from
the children's lives for no valid reason, then that *may well* be the
better outcome. Otherwise, I suspect that it would rarely even be
practical, let alone better, for the children to be brought up by a father
having to fit them around his work schedule and get child minders in most
of the time than to live with a mother working not at all or part time
only.

Even if she is depriving them of a father?

I have been under the impression that the current view is that all children
should have a father in the family.

--
Richard Miller

Richard Miller

2006-12-18 19:14:14 UTC

Post by Alan Holmes
If she were to be deprived of her children that would be a better outcome.

That would be a better outcome? In every such case, it would be better for
the children to be brought up by their father? I would hesitate long and
hard before making such sweeping statements.
*If* in addition to all the above the mother was excluding the father from
the children's lives for no valid reason, then that *may well* be the
better outcome. Otherwise, I suspect that it would rarely even be
practical, let alone better, for the children to be brought up by a father
having to fit them around his work schedule and get child minders in most
of the time than to live with a mother working not at all or part time
only.

Even if she is depriving them of a father?

Please note my use of the word "otherwise" in the above paragraph. It
contains the answer to your question.

Post by Alan Holmes
I have been under the impression that the current view is that all children
should have a father in the family.

Generally yes. But that does not mean in all circumstances, however
violent, drunk, abusive and hateful the man is.

--
Richard Miller

Mike

2006-12-18 19:00:20 UTC

Post by Richard Miller
*If* in addition to all the above the mother was excluding the father
from the children's lives for no valid reason, then that *may well* be
the better outcome. Otherwise, I suspect that it would rarely even be
practical, let alone better, for the children to be brought up by a
father having to fit them around his work schedule and get child minders
in most of the time than to live with a mother working not at all or
part time only.

There would be no need for the father to fit the children around his
work schedule. He could give up working to become a full time carer.
The mother, freed of the burden of the children, could then find a job
and pay maintenance to the father.

--
Mike

Richard Miller

2006-12-18 21:26:59 UTC

Post by Richard Miller
*If* in addition to all the above the mother was excluding the father
from the children's lives for no valid reason, then that *may well* be
the better outcome. Otherwise, I suspect that it would rarely even be
practical, let alone better, for the children to be brought up by a
father having to fit them around his work schedule and get child
minders in most of the time than to live with a mother working not at
all or part time only.

Yes, that would be possible.

However, it is usually the case that the father is able to secure a
higher income than the mother. This is just one reason why, when
together, if only one of a couple is working it will usually be the
mother who stays at home with the kids; and why it is often not in the
interests of any of the family to change that arrangement after a
separation.

It is these sorts of social realities that many "fathers' rights"
campaigners ignore when they complain that the Courts are biased in
favour of mothers.

--
Richard Miller

a***@hotmail.co.uk

2006-12-19 15:23:21 UTC