http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/26/nlawyer126.xml
2007-06-25 21:03:46 · 8 answers · asked by The_Informer 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
After you have read the story, think about what has been said, both parents have shared contact, The Man has to pay the women does not have to!
The court was asked by his ex-wife not to jail him, no one listens.
Is it not about time the CSA and the Government realise they have got it wrong, stop going for the dads who have part of the children lives and pay in one way or another.
Start going for the fathers who do not see their children, do not pay and do not care.
2007-06-25 21:07:03 · update #1
Paul Rules, what about the dads who do pay and still do not see their children because the mother refuses even though the Dad has a Court Order saying that he has the right.
If you agree with this then you will support the cause to start jailing mothers for breaking the law in retrospect of stopping fathers from seeing their children!
They are part of the equation as well
2007-06-25 21:11:56 · update #2
That is absolutely ludicrous. As a single parent whose child has no contact or support from her "father", (his decision, not mine) I fail to understand the logic in that. He is obviously involved in his child's life and if he has the kids a couple of days a week, that eases some of the financial burden, so what's the problem? The mother doesn't realise she's born, silly bit ch.
Oh, just read the rest, she's not a silly bit ch, I apologise.
2007-06-25 22:05:34 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
In New Zealand, shared contact is just that, shared, if the guy has to fork out for the child, then so does the mother, it's only in cases where the mother has sole custody that the father gets into trouble for not paying maintenance, if he doesn't pay. It's a real hard one though, because the fathers are often the ones that don't get to 'call the shots' after a relationship break up.
2007-06-25 21:11:28 · answer #2 · answered by Riki3 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
GOOD!
I have 2 kids with my missus and I have them for 2 nites a week. The CSA have arranged that the payments I make take these 2 nites into consideration and the amount is reduced accordingly.
If this "lawyer" was good at his job, he would understand that blokes like me get really p*ssed off that other dads find excuses not to pay, so good for the CSA taking a stand for once.
2007-06-25 21:08:06 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Having shared contact has nothing to do with support. Nor does visitation rights!
They are mutually excusive!
2007-06-25 21:06:38 · answer #4 · answered by cantcu 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Outrageous - but then, the law always was an ***!
The 'offensive' word Yahoo has chosen to delete is a*ss.
2007-06-25 21:08:47 · answer #5 · answered by jet-set 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Good. He should pay.
More needs to be done about the fathers, and mothers, who don't take their share of financial responsibility for their children.
2007-06-25 21:13:13 · answer #6 · answered by adayinjanuary 3 · 0⤊ 4⤋
all men should pay maintenance but going to prison is not going to help anyone why cant they take it out of his wages or the social money what good is going to prison
2007-06-25 21:22:41 · answer #7 · answered by shirley v 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
well woman run things so it doesnt suprise me, all laws are squewed towards women.
2007-06-25 21:06:02 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋