Friday, October 20, 2006

Why does a non paying dad get to see his kids?

It can seem dreadfully unfair. You struggle to buy the kids school shoes and your ex expects to see them when he/she chooses and pay nothing towards their keep. He/she may even demand that they arrive with a packed lunch !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Equally unfair is the dad (and it's usually the dad) who pays for everything so that his children don't suffer but is frequently let down by the mother cancelling contact visits, refusing ever to let him see them on Christmas Day, and treating his request to take them on holiday abroad in the same way an alien expedition to Mars would be greeted.


The Court's concern is the child. The public policy is that it is the child's right to have a fulfilling relationship with both parents, no matter how bad or feckless those parents are. Provided, of course, that they are not at risk of harm.

The all paying dad would obtain more contact with his children if he went to Court, probably even alternate Christmas's, but he won't do it because he puts his children first.

The non paying dad (and it's usually the dad) does not put his children first. He may even quit his job to avoid a Child Support Agency assessment. I do not want to stand up for any of these people but the ones who show an interest in seeing their children are better, surely, than the ones who simply disappear?


doozy said...

See the article "Why should abused fathers pay Child Support?"

Not all non-paying dads are the evil feckless scum bags we all dislike, some have more reasons than others, and many are still good fathers, but unable to fall for the financial demands before the welfare and relationship demands they prioritise.

Anonymous said...

Refusing to pay towards your child's upkeep makes your child's life worse. Why would any parent choose to do that? Your article compares it to funding a kidnapper. If a child was kidnapped and the kidnapper demanded money to feed and cloth that child most people would pay straight away. What's wrong with you guys? The damage you cause to your own children is irreversible.

Anonymous said...

Children have the right to be financially supported by both parents.
How can people be so cruel as to create a child without caring for its wellbeing?
If a parent won't contribute to her/his own child s/he is a deadbeat and should be ashamed of her/himself.

Anonymous said...


you commented:

"The non paying dad (and it's usually the dad) does not put his children first"

which I feel reveals a lot - it's usually the dad because it's usually the mum who has the children. Neither sex has exclusive rights on being irresponsible, and to provide a gender-related comment like this, does nothing to help matters.

Pehaps this was just a slip on your part, but if it actually reveals a bias then you have to accept that you will be criticised accordingly.

Surely if the CSA system were fairer, people would be more included to accept it. This is an issue which has been addressed recently by John Bloch (Family Lore)
and also the new Family Law blog (Paying for children: never never? at

As a further comment, it is often overlooked that the CSA money is not earmarked for any specific purpose, and merely goes from one adult to the other. Whilst it is portrayed as being "child support" it could just as easily be "lifestyle support" for the other adult - as is the case when childcare is shared equally, but the CSA are involved.

I can point to a case where the mother's new partner is a millionaire, but her feelings about the father (who is anything but) are such that she refuses to cancel the CSA payments. The consequence is that he has much less money than she has to spend on his children - who are then denied things he cannot afford. Who's the scumbag, and what gender are they?

As I say, neither sex has exclusive rights on behaving in a way that is not in their children's best interests.