|
Post by june on Jan 10, 2011 20:31:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by beez0811 on Jan 11, 2011 3:05:59 GMT
What those morons don't get is that it might be better for some to not be together. They should also learn to not use their children as pawns.
This is from The Mirror so I don't know if it true.
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Jan 11, 2011 13:29:55 GMT
The Mirror, alone in the media world, still supports Labour. I suppose someone has to, but they have selectively concentrated on one aspect of the coalitions initiative in the field of marriage, marriage breakdown, and its consequences, instead of viewing the whole.
The UK has the highest divorce rate in the western world, and that is because too many of todays younger people simply view marriage as a temporary, non-binding state that can be walked away from when the odd rainy days pop up. Marriage has to be worked on and nurtured, and few marriages do not go through sticky patches which, with the right will and determination, can be worked through instead of simply upping sticks and walking away. IDS wants married couples to give much more effort to conciliation and discussion when the problems arise, instead of rushing into divorce.
As for the CSA and the proposed charges:--couples determined to part can make their own arrangements about maintenance, and are not forced to use the offices of the CSA. Where they do, then a charge might make them pause and consider what is best for their children in the long run. No-one is arguing that where a marriage has broken down irretrievably, an unhappy couple must stay together, but, as I said at the outset, many marriages end for what many of the older generation would consider flimsy excuses!
|
|
|
Post by june on Jan 11, 2011 22:29:28 GMT
The story is correct though in that this is an idea that is being mooted by this government and for the reason the Mirror states.
IDS is a catholic and his views colour his desires in policy (that's not a negative criticism - at least you know what IDS stands for even if one doesn't agree)
I just don't see how this measure will keep families together - it will punish the poor and less able people who need to divorce. They will have to use public services but will be the ones to have barriers put in front of them.
the rich - who do not need the services will divorce as they want.
That is a two tier system based on ability to pay not need.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2011 19:02:30 GMT
The CSA has been at breaking point for ages. If contributing helps keep it going, well, so be it.
What I have always thought unfair is that men who dispute paternity claims have to pay the cost of tests if they are proved to be the father after all. But if they are proved not to be, the woman never has to pay, even though she was at fault in naming the man! I'm going by what I found out about a year ago.
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Jan 12, 2011 19:43:09 GMT
The CSA has been at breaking point for ages. If contributing helps keep it going, well, so be it. What I have always thought unfair is that men who dispute paternity claims have to pay the cost of tests if they are proved to be the father after all. But if they are proved not to be, the woman never has to pay, even though she was at fault in naming the man! I'm going by what I found out about a year ago. It's even worse than that, Skylark. I recently read about a case where a man (if my memory serves me correctly in the United States) was FORCED by a court to pay alimony to a woman even though a) they had split up; b) it was NOT his child; c) the child was the product of a sperm donor. The utter irrationality of the law has always astonished me.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2011 19:59:45 GMT
Mike, It is quite hard to comment on that without knowing the facts. If the man had known about the donor sperm and agreed to take on the child as his own, it would seem quite reasonable. But I am guessing those were not the facts, or you would not have found this astonishing!
So far as the CSA is conerned, separated parents are not forced to use the agency. It is easy enough to work out how much the absent parent should be paying and make a voluntary arrangement along those lines. Then if the money isn't paid and the parent with care has to go to the CSA, the absent parent (or the one at fault) should be the one to pay.
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Jan 13, 2011 14:34:53 GMT
And while on the subject of fairness, haven't I read somewhere that the government intends to legislate so that when a divorce takes place, any wealth and/or property owned by one or the other PRIOR to the marriage is not up for grabs when the division of the marital assets is being calculated?
About bloody time, if you ask me!
|
|
|
Post by june on Jan 13, 2011 16:43:48 GMT
And while on the subject of fairness, haven't I read somewhere that the government intends to legislate so that when a divorce takes place, any wealth and/or property owned by one or the other PRIOR to the marriage is not up for grabs when the division of the marital assets is being calculated? About bloody time, if you ask me! I agree. Both partners now have opportunity to work before they move in together (unlike previously when a womans work was to be barefoot and pregnant). What you have together fair enough but what you had before is your own - as long as your offspring are cared for. No father should have loads of holidays and nice houses while their children are supported by tax payers because he lies and pay pitiful maintenance.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2011 9:01:09 GMT
It can of course work the other way, June; dad living in a bedsit payig maintenance while the mother has the house, possibly with a new partner. I work in an advice centre and see both sides. The worst case I saw was a divorced man who had lost his job and awarded contribution based Jobseeker's Allowance. This meant he couldn't apply for a means tested benefit, so the CSA was making him pay at the previous rate. It left him £5 a week to live on,and there was nothing anyone could do. I hope they have changed the rules since then.
Then there are the women who, on hearing their partner has lost his job and can't afford to continue paying, decide that he can't see the children. I've sat and listened to a few mothers boasting that they have done just that - often, admittedly, because they don't believe he is as poor as he is making out. In that situations the CSA can help find out if he is lying, but someone should pay for their services....him, if he is telling porkies.
Maintenance works best if it is agreed. That helps keep both sides speaking to each other, which has to be better for the children.
|
|
|
Post by june on Jan 14, 2011 11:39:34 GMT
I agree there are some fathers badly affected but there are few single mothers living the life of riley on the ex's maintenance.
On the earlier point of not splitting assets brought to the marriage, I wonder if they will need to change the marriage vows to accommodate this?
Do they not say something about "ALL my worldly good I thee endow"? This proposed change makes that untrue!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2011 11:47:40 GMT
June, I'm sure you are right about few single mothers living "the life of riley" off their ex's maintenance. But the fact remains that those payments, meagre as they are, can often leave fathers in poor circumstances too.
Years ago I attended a church wedding where both bride and groom agreed to make the same vows. My friend, who had considerably more assets than the groom, said she nearly choked on the "all my wordly goods I thee endow" bit.
But fundamental to the vows in any ceremony I know is a lifelong commitment, so once that is broken everything else flies out of the window.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2011 11:53:51 GMT
More and more parents seem to be going into "split custody" arrangements on separation, whereby the children live with their dad at (say) weekends.
The CSA is now recognising that when the father has that kind of caring responsibility he should have his maintenance liability reduced. If there is more than one child they can each claim child benefit for at least one of them; this entitles a low-income dad to claim housing benefit for a two bedroom flat so the kids can have their space when they stay.
|
|
|
Post by june on Jan 14, 2011 12:02:31 GMT
I can understand that, I really can.
If the parents both live near each other it is obviously much easier to come to an arrangement whereby each has a weekend with the kids and some evenings. It is when one moves away that the problems start, and it is morally right for that person to take on more of the travel burden. Often that doesn't happen, and Dad is still expected to drive half way across the country to see his kids even if his ex is the one who moved!
Both ex dads and ex mums can be difficult about these things in my experience.
|
|
|
Post by june on Jan 14, 2011 12:07:23 GMT
I brought more material things to my marriage, and earn substantially more too. However, my husband is fantastic at DIY and has added value to every home we have had and enriched our lives.
I also live in hope that he wins the lottery very soon so I agree we own everything 50 50.
Not that we are ever going to divorce - he's the loveliest human being I know and I love him very much.
|
|
|
Post by june on Jan 14, 2011 13:10:52 GMT
Eh? I didn't say this? I can understand that, I really can. If the parents both live near each other it is obviously much easier to come to an arrangement whereby each has a weekend with the kids and some evenings. It is when one moves away that the problems start, and it is morally right for that person to take on more of the travel burden. Often that doesn't happen, and Dad is still expected to drive half way across the country to see his kids even if his ex is the one who moved! Both ex dads and ex mums can be difficult about these things in my experience.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2011 14:04:08 GMT
No, I did. What on earth is going on? Did someone press the wrong button or something by mistake?
Awful thought - perhaps it was me. Really, if Lin did but know it, I'm not safe to be let loose.
|
|
|
Post by june on Jan 14, 2011 14:35:54 GMT
No, I did. What on earth is going on? Did someone press the wrong button or something by mistake? Awful thought - perhaps it was me. Really, if Lin did but know it, I'm not safe to be let loose. ;D I think you hit modify rather than quote - no biggie I've deleted a thread by mistake myself!
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jan 14, 2011 15:29:32 GMT
And while on the subject of fairness, haven't I read somewhere that the government intends to legislate so that when a divorce takes place, any wealth and/or property owned by one or the other PRIOR to the marriage is not up for grabs when the division of the marital assets is being calculated? About bloody time, if you ask me! agreed...long over due
|
|
|
Post by sadie1263 on Jan 14, 2011 15:52:52 GMT
Well.....I think definitely when wealth is involved there has to be some controls involved.....way too many cases of people getting involved just for the money and claiming everything!!!
But as far as trying to keep people together for the sake of the kids......absolute insanity. I have some cousins that their parents stayed together....."for the kids".....all they did was screw up their children massively!!! They fought and treated each other horribly in front of them their entire lives....and every one of the kids grew up with a truly warped idea of marriage and relationships. Their parents are still together and it is horrible to be around them.....they don't even try to hide or tone down the nastiness anymore.......
|
|