Child support

[Olgaline]

the rights are equal "at least in denmark"

simple facts.

It takes two to tango, two to have an acident/mistake.
If you think abortion is a fair demand..then your honestly clueless.
she has the right to choose to have the baby without your say.
You how ever have the right to part take in your childs life,
You have the right on major decisions, and other major influences
once the child is over roughly 1½ years, you can choose to file to
have that child live permenatly at your place.

your rights are actually 50/50 compeared to the mother.
now that you didnt want the kid in the first place, well? Tough!
it's what you do after that point that defines you as a person and caretaker.

after all, it's no longer about you or her!
it's about that child, and that childs right to a as decent a life as the biological parrents can provide.
unless adoption is an option.

 

[Dark Orb Choir]

tough one this, saying you do not want kids then unknowingly you get some bird up the duff, i think you would warm to the fact that you are a dad, you would always want to know about the child, personally i would want access and pay as much as i could for the childs upkeep.

"a child to make it, a man to raise it"

are there more people on here without kids that have kids ?, ask people like Trem about kids or me, i would have never thought about being a dad when i was under 30, thne at 32 my son jake came alone, my life changed and i had a completely different outlook on life.


the question should really be do you want kids or not, have a wank to be 100% sure not to get someone up the duff if you do not want kids, anythnig else is just being selfish, which tbh with alot of you on here, thats what you are, its not your faults, its the society we live in

 

[old.Tohtori]

So you think a single mother just sits around home living off the child support from the deadbeat dad?

And if you dont want to get childs, just go snip the pipes, if you tie them it's not 100% either. But the 100% procedure it none reverseable.

Yes ofcourse, that's exactly what i said...because "These days it should reflect more on equal rights *cough* and the protection used, not just "Your dick was in, you pay!". Even though such equality in this is a pipedream." so easily translates to "The women just sit around eating hagendas while the men pay".

Snipping the pipes isn't 100% either, but it's as efective as wearing a condom and it not breaking.

Anyway, if someone ends up pregnant, you've got a few good months time to decide what to do.

What do you guys think of some bird coming at your door a year later and ask for money without you even knowing you have a baby on the way? Still think it's fair?

This issue is nto, in any way, fair towards the father. It is how it is, but doesn't make it fair.

which tbh with alot of you on here, thats what you are, its not your faults, its the society we live in

Funny how you took yourself away from that selfish group

 

[Bahumat]

I had a thought while at lunch imagine the situation;

You have a one night stand with a woman and through no-ones fault lets say the condom splits. She gets pregnant.

She comes to you and tells you she is preggers, you tell her right off you dont want a child, she tells you i dont care what you say im keeping it and due to you not wanting one you will never ever see the child, a threat she sticks to.

In a situation where you made it perfectly clear you didnt want a child, bearing in mind all the proper methods were taken and it was unfortunate, and you arent allowed to see the child.

Do you still think you should still be forced to pay maintenance?

BTW i dont have an opinion either way its a tough one, i can see both sides of the arguement

No you should not.

What I hate is if she wants the child and you dont, there's not much you can do about it.

What's hard is when the child grows up and asks about dad. Does the mum reveal his identity?

 

[Olgaline]

What's hard is when the child grows up and asks about dad. Does the mum reveal his identity?

Dad can make sure that never becomes an issue.

tell the chick, that if she goes ahead with this, you be on that child like glue on tape.

unless she has some sicko stalker crush on you, she will think twice!

 

[tris-]

Yeah thats what im thinking too. The woman makes the decision and the man has no power at all even tho he has taken all the precausions he could at the time

look at it this way. if we didnt have abortion, the mistake is still present and someeone must care for it. in your scenario it is the woman, she has to look after the kid for 18 years and all you have to do is pay £80 a month. she comes off worse even though it is a mistake for both people.

we do have abortion and we cant force a woman to have one. if she doesnt want an abortion, i dont think she should be penalised for a mistake comitted by two people.

 

[Olgaline]

 

[soze]

I do worry about my head when i hear people talk about this it gets me thinking if im some kind of monster. I know blokes who have had their hearts ripped out by girls getting abortions. And i know guys paying a 1/3rd of their salary for kids that the girl had to get a council house.

I want kids btw so i would have no problem with standing up and looking after my kid should we have an mistake.

 

[Chronictank]

look at it this way. if we didnt have abortion, the mistake is still present and someeone must care for it. in your scenario it is the woman, she has to look after the kid for 18 years and all you have to do is pay £80 a month. she comes off worse even though it is a mistake for both people.

we do have abortion and we cant force a woman to have one. if she doesnt want an abortion, i dont think she should be penalised for a mistake comitted by two people.

this

Everyone knows condoms are not 100% nor is the pill, you have sex knowing this risk so should be prepared for the consequences

 

[Huntingtons]

So a mistake which is 50/50 if she wants it you don't you have to pay for the kid her choice 100%. If you want it she does not she gets an abortion again its 100% her choice. I'm sorry but i will never agree with you on this, for something that takes two people the bloke always has so little say. It does take two to get pregnant but blame always goes one way if i was a woman i would call it sexist tbh.

as it is now its like this:

you knock her up unintentionally while being "protected". Options are simple: Abortion or Birth.
Abortion = no loss for you, massive loss for her (abortion complications, physical and emotional stress, after all, she carried a child inside her - you didnt).
Birth. She has to raise the kid (not taking previous option for many reasons), possibly alone and for certain not with biological parent. Pay for whatever it needs, 18+ years ahead of terrorism from that kid! you have to pay child support once a month.
I would call top one 100% damage to her 0% to you.
I would call 2nd option 50% 50% at closest.

What if you want the child and she doesnt? if you have the right to give away all responsibility if she wants the kid, then its should be vice versa. That is if you want your so called equality in this dilemma.

 

[soze]

as it is now its like this:

you knock her up unintentionally while being "protected". Options are simple: Abortion or Birth.
Abortion = no loss for you, massive loss for her (abortion complications, physical and emotional stress, after all, she carried a child inside her - you didnt).
Birth. She has to raise the kid (not taking previous option for many reasons), possibly alone and for certain not with biological parent. Pay for whatever it needs, 18+ years ahead of terrorism from that kid! you have to pay child support once a month.
I would call top one 100% damage to her 0% to you.
I would call 2nd option 50% 50% at closest.

What if you want the child and she doesnt? if you have the right to give away all responsibility if she wants the kid, then its should be vice versa. That is if you want your so called equality in this dilemma.

Have you ever known someone who wants a kid but the woman gets an abortion? Because i do and there is a big loss for the man not just the woman.

And your second point that is currently the case i want the kid and she does not she gets an abortion so there you go. I do not know how it would work if she carried it to term but then gave it away for adoption and the father took it would the mother pay child support? If she would be forced to pay then that is just as unfair to be honest.

 

[Huntingtons]

i didnt mean you as a specific individual but you as a general assumption by the way.

i see your pain though, i would hate to see a girl i knock up get an abortion.

 

[Ch3tan]

It's not a balck and white situation, there could be all sorts of grey areas, and that creates problems. But here is my black and white answer: If it is accidental and the woman wants the baby and the man does not then he should not have to pay anything. I think that claims for child support should have to be made before the pregnancy is at the stage it cannot be aborted, that way the woman knows full well that she will get no payments from the guy, and he knows that he will get no access to the child. Only way I can see it being done fairly, but you have all sorts of religious and emotional issues, so it can never be that straightforward.

 

[Sparx]

Although that said, if the mother will not allow the father access, then I personally do not believe child support should be paid. Some courts will also agree with this, the mother does not have the right to just exclude the father because she feels like it.

This is the point im wondering.

I think if he is made to pay then he should have rights to see, if he isnt allowed access then he shouldnt pay


Forget about the abortion thing, dont think of it as either/or more like she is happy she is pregnant and wants to keep it, not just avoid an abortion

 

[Olgaline]

This is the point im wondering.

I think if he is made to pay then he should have rights to see, if he isnt allowed access then he shouldnt pay

If UK law is anything close to Danish law, and as this is the EU after all,
I'm guessing it is..then YEs the father ahs a right to see his child on a regular basis, this means "in denmark" as a rule of thumb ever other weekend friday-monday morning, and one day in the opposite week example Wedensday afternoon-Thusday morning. + 2 x 1 week vaccation when under the age of 3 and 2+1 over the age of 3, also every other christmas, and other major holidays.

add to this the right of influence on any major decisions, such as religion, school, medical procedures ect...

on a side note, alot of people tend to forget, it's not the mother your paying!
it's the child that you support, there's a major difference!! it's just often overlooked in the clouds of adult disagreements.

 

[old.Tohtori]

If UK law is anything close to Danish law, and as this is the EU after all,
I'm guessing it is..then YEs the father ahs a right to see his child on a regular basis, this means "in denmark" as a rule of thumb ever other weekend friday-monday morning, and one day in the opposite week example Wedensday afternoon-Thusday morning. + 2 x 1 week vaccation when under the age of 3 and 2+1 over the age of 3, also every other christmas, and other major holidays.

add to this the right of influence on any major decisions, such as religion, school, medical procedures ect...

on a side note, alot of people tend to forget, it's not the mother your paying!
it's the child that you support, there's a major difference!! it's just often overlooked in the clouds of adult disagreements.

And if you don't want to support that kid? No choice, yeah, wopie.

Those times the father gets to see the kid are again uneven and with only every other weekend, you will be affecting shit all about major decicions or the kids upbringing.

Week here, week there would be equal and all kid related costs split 50/50 no matter what. And no payments from father unless a reciept is provided.

The mothers are NOT that holy as they are painted here.

THAT would work.

 

[Sparx]

on a side note, alot of people tend to forget, it's not the mother your paying!
it's the child that you support, there's a major difference!! it's just often overlooked in the clouds of adult disagreements.

If thats the case then why do children need over £10,000 a month? thats the case with alot of celebrities. A child doesnt need that money

 

[old.Tohtori]

If thats the case then why do children need over £10,000 a month? thats the case with alot of celebrities. A child doesnt need that money

Exactly. Why is child support paid in correlation to your pay if it's "for the kid"?

 

[Olgaline]

I cba to talk about celeb cases.. or silly american examples.

and h'choly crap Toht if you think child support is 50/50
my step sons dad pays 1100 kr pr. mounth thats symbolic at best.
he does however have equal rights.

 

[old.Tohtori]

and h'choly crap Toht if you think child support is 50/50
my step sons dad pays 1100 kr pr. mounth thats symbolic at best.
he does however have equal rights.

I said SHOULD be 50/50, regarding payment(not just by celebs) that go DIRECTLY to the kid and the time spent with kid in such a situation should be 50/50, NOT every other weekend.

If you can't be arsed to talk about celeb cases, answer this; why is the child support linked to income and not a set cost estimate?

To make it clear...

A system that would work in my opinion is this;

- If a woman wants the man to pay, he pays only for proven costs to the kid and gets 50% of the kids time and every school choice etc are discussed and agreed on.
- If the woman doens't agree to thsi, she doesn't get paid.
- If the woman agrees for a 50% seeing schedule etc, but the man doesn't want to see the kid, he still pays.

 

[Olgaline]

thats a very one sided pov.
so if the woman dosent agree to the terms, the child gets punished ?

child support is based on income, because that defines the level of care you can provide for your child.
If you earn a but load of money, then why shouldnt your child benifit from that ?

Now if parrents disagree on f.exp school or general level of education, or
living standarts, it's never just a question of the mother getting to rip off the dads, oh so hard earned money.
An actual estimate is reached by a 3'rd party where everything is taken into account.
and from that the parrents can then negotiate, and if a agreement still cannot be reached,
then the amount would be set by f.exp a judge or state offical.

this is in the Eu or well at least in most scandinavian countries, and this is only if the
parrent who does not have the child living with him/her earns over a cirtian amount, that could justify a higher level of child support.

the set standart by law, "in denmark at least" is roughly 1135,- kr pr. mounth.
any dickhead can afford that. and if you cant "like my step sons dad" the goverment will
pay it for you. "you still owe it though"

I do feel sorry for alot of dads out there, that are often "cheated" from seeing thier children, because of old archane laws, and general uneducated opinions. but when it comes to the economic side off it ? I ´have not much sympathy!

 

[old.Tohtori]

IT's not one sided, it's there to ensure that the father gets equal rights to the kid IF he's going to care for it.

If the woman doesn't give equal rights to the kid, he shouldn't pay either.

The standard of living for the kid shouldn't be equal to the pay of one parent, it should be calculated by the state what is needed for food, clothes etc and NOTHING more. The child shouldn't benefit for the parents hard work, the kid should benefit IF the parents have 50% custody.

High paying jobs fathers have it worse, have to pay more and still have no real rights regarding seeing the kid.

It's one sided when looking at the rights of the father.

 

[soze]

I don't agree with that if the child is born and the mother needs that money if a court finds the father unsuitable (only way a father can be denied visitation) then i do not agree he should get away without paying.

My friend pays £400 a month or 30% of his wages for his little girl who lives with her Mum in a council flat. None of that money makes it to his kid it is spent of going out drinking fags and whatever else a essex chav spends money on. This is where i get the big problem tbh he has taken her to court for primary custody but he keeps getting told the child is best off with its mother but i do not agree one parent sees it as a way to get a council flat and the other actually would put her before themselves.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I don't agree with that if the child is born and the mother needs that money if a court finds the father unsuitable (only way a father can be denied visitation) then i do not agree he should get away without paying.

My friend pays £400 a month or 30% of his wages for his little girl who lives with her Mum in a council flat. None of that money makes it to his kid it is spent of going out drinking fags and whatever else a essex chav spends money on. This is where i get the big problem tbh he has taken her to court for primary custody but he keeps getting told the child is best off with its mother but i do not agree one parent sees it as a way to get a council flat and the other actually would put her before themselves.

That's where it always goes tits up, the mother gets better rights 9/10 times.

Same goes for females paying child support, they can just flip a bird and that's that. Courts don't even persue many cases where the mother doesn't pay support.

If the father is paying, he should get full rights, not JUST visitation rights like it's now.

If he's unfit for a father by court order, that's a different case altogether.

 

[Olgaline]

IT's not one sided, it's there to ensure that the father gets equal rights to the kid IF he's going to care for it.

yes it is

If the woman doesn't give equal rights to the kid, he shouldn't pay either

it's not her choice to make, not anymore

The standard of living for the kid shouldn't be equal to the pay of one parent, it should be calculated by the state what is needed for food, clothes etc and NOTHING more. The child shouldn't benefit for the parents hard work, the kid should benefit IF the parents have 50% custody.

ofcause it should,
if you are able provide a certin level of care for your child,
then a higher level of child support is fair. these amounts always reflect your income, and arent all that much in the grand perspective of your income.
so you are indeed paying 10.000 then you your a mega millionare! and thus can easily afford it.

oh and lets not forget, if you earn that much, especially if thats not the case with he mother, your chances of getting full costody of your child are very high indeed, or 50/50 if thats what you wish. They will always place the child where it's deemed to have the best oportunities and prosperity in life "not just economically" if both parrents file for costody

ofcause Special considerations is shown towards infants,
and here it's correct that parrents arent equal, but if your going to blame anyone blame nature for that, unless your that special breed of dad that can provide breast milk, well then your basicly fucked.

High paying jobs fathers have it worse, have to pay more and still have no real rights regarding seeing the kid.

It's one sided when looking at the rights of the father.

to this all i can say is,
apparently you watch faar to much american tv.

As by law, from the moment a child is born, both parrents have equal rights
to the child, in all matters, it's actually that simple.
now i cant speak for other countries, but thats the way it is here.

the rest is whiny generic bullcrap.

 

[old.Tohtori]

As by law, from the moment a child is born, both parrents have equal rights
to the child, in all matters, it's actually that simple.

But it's NOT that simple.

The women always get treated better by the court, the men are not treated equal. Neither in single father cases or in custody cases.

The costs of the kid should be the SAME, especially if the father has no say in the kids life and can't see the kid an equal amount of time.

So in short;

Women always get an upper hand in custody cases.
You should pay a fixed amount for the kid, no matter your income(the extra providing comes from caring for the kid and the associate costs there).
Things are not equal and the system is outdated.

Your other replies make you seem like you're just going "nu-uh" and your whole attitude is so biased(most likely due to the "bastard stepson father"), that it's better to end the discussion with you.

 

[Chronictank]

But it's NOT that simple.

The women always get treated better by the court, the men are not treated equal. Neither in single father cases or in custody cases.

The costs of the kid should be the SAME, especially if the father has no say in the kids life and can't see the kid an equal amount of time.

So in short;

Women always get an upper hand in custody cases.
You should pay a fixed amount for the kid, no matter your income(the extra providing comes from caring for the kid and the associate costs there).
Things are not equal and the system is outdated.

Your other replies make you seem like you're just going "nu-uh" and your whole attitude is so biased(most likely due to the "bastard stepson father"), that it's better to end the discussion with you.

Why should it be 50/50?

The father is not looking after the child, so arguably they are paying the mothers wage. The additional payments are for the upkeep of the child

 

[old.Tohtori]

Why should it be 50/50?

The father is not looking after the child, so arguably they are paying the mothers wage. The additional payments are for the upkeep of the child

If the father wants(with no unfit bull), it should be 50/50 time spent with the child.

Also the payments should be 50/50.

If the father doesn't get the same rights as the mother, he shouldn't pay equally for the upkeep either.

You can't have "payments to raise a child" and "no same rights to see child" and call it equal.

 

[Olgaline]

Your other replies make you seem like you're just going "nu-uh"
and your whole attitude is so biased(most likely due to the "bastard stepson father"),
that it's better to end the discussion with you.

Or
due to him, I've actually spent time educating myself on the matter ?
your views simply seem, outdated, arcane, and honestly abit generic,

I'm very aware of rights on both sides, partly due to "the idiot"
and partly due to the fact that i myself now have a daughter, and I can asure you,
if by some odd warped spacetime continuum reason my GF and me should split up,
I know exactly where my daughter will be living.....with me!

 

[old.Tohtori]

money for a child, is not ment as leasure money for the parrent with whome the child stays, the money should go towards, education, living standarts "thats housing, bike, car, clothing, roller skates. ect ect" vaccations "yes vaccation" and such, and ofcause to ensure that childs future. " locked acounts, uni studie accounts, ect ect...

Vacations(for example) are not necessary costs and should be agreed upon by both parents and reciepts etc should be used to bill the father.

Same with rollerskates etc.

All these should be agree upon and paid 50/50, THAT is fair.

The mother saying "Oh he needs to go to karate" or "he needs to go to the bahamas" is NOT a necessary thing and it's not up to the mother to choose.

Equal costs mean equal rights.

Or
due to him, I've actually spent time educating myself on the matter ?
your views simply seem, outdated, arcane, and honestly abit generic,

I'm very aware of rights on both sides, partly due to "the idiot"
and partly due to the fact that i myself now have a daughter, and I can asure you,
if by some odd warped spacetime continuum reason my GF and me should split up,
I know exactly where my daughter will be living.....with me!

Education can be warped, especially with such an example as an insentive. HAve you checked how poor women are in paying child suport, compared to men?(as an example).

If that daughter is just yours, she would live with you a 100%, without that, it's not stacked in your favor from the start.

OFcourse you could influence it, but courts always side with the mother at first.