Just shows feminism is now benefiting both men and women. Ofcourse Halle Berry should pay for her child to live in the comfort that reflect's her mother's wealth.
feminism is the women's rights movement; that's why it's called "fem"inism. so really this isn't about feminism at all, just legal equality. feminism is usually about legal inequality favouring women after all.
If it's joint custody, neither parent should be paying child support to the other. The only way that should happen is if one parent isn't involved, or has very limited custody. If it's joint, then neither should pay because that's ****ing ridiculous.
I'm not getting the part where she has to pay even though it's joint custody, but regardless that amount of money isn't too onerous for her to pay out for a child she cares about and whose life she's actively involved in. It'd be weird to resent paying out money for her daughter.
66,000 women in the u.k are paying CS to their exes so women don't always win custody of the children it is likely the primary carer will win custody ( the one who makes food, cleans,bathes takes them to school) which is in the majority of cases the mother.
While there's over 400,000 single fathers.... this means most women will not pay child support
While there's over 400,000 single fathers.... this means most women will not pay child support
They may not be paying child support but most will still be paying for their child. Most child support is not enough to raise a child on - the other parent must contribute financially as well. It just doesn't seem like such a big deal to people because it's money you spend in day-to-day life, like housing, heating, food, clothes, days out etc.
They may not be paying child support but most will still be paying for their child. Most child support is not enough to raise a child on - the other parent must contribute financially as well. It just doesn't seem like such a big deal to people because it's money you spend in day-to-day life, like housing, heating, food, clothes, days out etc.
doubt feminist would use that excuse when it's the other way around
a rich minority hardly help the averaged joe in the street :P
I have already talked about the "average joe on the street". The parent that lives with the chile already pays a significant amount towards the child's needs unless they are unable to. Child maintenance only seems like a huge burden because it is paid as a monthly sum - if they lived with the child they would be paying a similar amount anyway.
I have already talked about the "average joe on the street". The parent that lives with the chile already pays a significant amount towards the child's needs unless they are unable to. Child maintenance only seems like a huge burden because it is paid as a monthly sum - if they lived with the child they would be paying a similar amount anyway.
The main problem is father who have roughly 50-50 contact while a child will still be paying child support as if the mother has full custody.
The main problem is father who have roughly 50-50 contact while a child will still be paying child support as if the mother has full custody.
If they have 50-50 contact, it is known as shared residence rather than sole residence (term for 'full custody'). You cannot have 50-50 contact with the child if one parent has sole residence. The higher earning partner may still have to pay child support even if they spend equal time with the child because it is unfair that people with different such different incomes should contribute equally. If one partner earns ÂŁ15,000 and the other ÂŁ30,000, it is fair that the one with more money should cover more of the costs. Although it isn't about paying money to his/her ex - it is about limiting the suffering of the children as far as possible from their parent's separation.
If they have 50-50 contact, it is known as shared residence rather than sole residence (term for 'full custody'). You cannot have 50-50 contact with the child if one parent has sole residence. The higher earning partner may still have to pay child support even if they spend equal time with the child because it is unfair that people with different such different incomes should contribute equally. If one partner earns ÂŁ15,000 and the other ÂŁ30,000, it is fair that the one with more money should cover more of the costs. Although it isn't about paying money to his/her ex - it is about limiting the suffering of the children as far as possible from their parent's separation.
Child support is not about redistributing wealth, it's about caring for a child.
If one parent cannot afford the full cost's of childcare then it's slightly different. Even then it's a dodgy issue. You could argue if one parent cannot afford to look after a child that the child should live with the other parent until they have their finances sorted out.
Child support is not about redistributing wealth, it's about caring for a child.
If one parent cannot afford the full cost's of childcare then it's slightly different. Even then it's a dodgy issue. You could argue if one parent cannot afford to look after a child that the child should live with the other parent until they have their finances sorted out.
It's about getting some trashy woman that new pair of ''cute'' heels. There needs to be some measures so that child support gets spent on children and not in local fashion stores
That's where the majority of benefits goes. A bunch of worthless women breeding the future criminals of the nation.
got any evidence of that? because everything I have seen show that the biggest proportion of benefits goes to pensioners or income support for people actually in work.