Absent parents may lose passports ? fair?

Page

Suspended

Posted: 17 years ago

Absent parents may lose passports

Absent parents who do not pay child support could have their passports and driving licences seized without having to be taken to court. The Department for Work and Pensions said the proposals contained in the Welfare Reform Bill would be a "last resort" if other sanctions failed.

Latest estimates suggest absent parents owe nearly 4bn in unpaid maintenance.

But opponents say the government's plans could lead to breaches of parents' civil rights.

More @ https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7852640.stm

What are your views ?

Fair/Unfair as a last resort? Would it even work. Its more single parent mother coping so if dad won't cough up money for kiddo - should he be forced especially if he does not want anything to do with child? Burden/Costs/expensives etc should be shared seeing as it takes 2 to tango😉 and equal resoponsibility for actions?

Will add my POV Later - can't right now.

Quote

Frequent Posters

raj5000

@raj5000

Sparkler

Posted: 17 years ago

Originally posted by: anon

Fair/Unfair as a last resort?

Unfair. Arn't there ways to enforce legally what was agreed upon, financially? I mean possessing assets, tapping the paystub from employer etc etc. If the responsible person is broke and refuses to do anything for living, jail them, all or any earning during jail work should be sent out against the child support. (I am sorry, I don't understand, how this works so raw thoughts)

Would it even work. Its more single parent mother coping so if dad won't cough up money for kiddo - should he be forced especially if he does not want anything to do with child?

What? Dad won't cough up ...sorry he/she is out of choice.

Burden/Costs/expensives etc should be shared seeing as it takes 2 to tango😉 and equal resoponsibility for actions?

Depends on - What was agreed upong during separation custody Vs child support or both on sharing basis? Taking care of a child full time is no less then a full time job as I understand. So, party who has child custody is already doing thier bit. BTW - Single mom, by defination are moms who out to have a child outside the wedlock and decides to go ahead with raising the child on her own accord, in that case no support should be provided by 2nd or third party.

Will add my POV Later - can't right now.

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

6508

Suspended

Posted: 17 years ago

Originally posted by: raj5000

Thanks for POV's though 😳

Quote

return_to_hades

@return_to_hades

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 17 years ago

I am not sure how the whole child support system works legally. I have heard stories of parents evading wage garnishment and fleeing etc. This is a fair tactic for those who have chosen to defy the law in all odds.

I thought a single parent was anyone raising a child alone, including divorcees and widowed people (although they wont be claiming support from a ghost).

I can understand the sentiment that a person who has a child must bear the consequences even if they did it out of wedlock. However, the child would not exist without the man - does he not have to own up to some share of the responsibility? If the woman takes up raising the child which can be 90% of the task, a man can contribute too. In many places in USA society is so anti-abortion that people are trained to think it is not even an option.

Of course there is adoption like in Juno. But many times women grow attached to the fact that they are having a baby (it is a female thing to love even bodily parasites, we are a strange breed) that abortion/adoption are choices to emotionally overwhelming to make.

My theory is that in teenage pregnancies grandparents should bear consequences. After all they did not look after their babies properly. They ought to have prevented kids from being naughty. 😆

Quote

raj5000

@raj5000

Sparkler

Posted: 17 years ago

Originally posted by: anon

Thanks for POV's though 😳

Quote

raj5000

@raj5000

Sparkler

Posted: 17 years ago

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

My theory is that in teenage pregnancies grandparents should bear consequences. After all they did not look after their babies properly. They ought to have prevented kids from being naughty. 😆

😆😆😆 Not fair on the one's who are blessed by devilish rebel, who knows everything about the life...numeroo UNO teeny...😉😆 not for anything but atleast for the lesson learnt sake, to preach the coming generations.

Quote

Jasmine

@jasmine_triv

Inactive

Posted: 17 years ago

If people are willing to bring children into the world, then they should also be able to provide for them. So the absent parents need to pay up for the sake of the child, whether they like it or not. The article talks about infringing civil liberties, but the state has the power to override any liberties as long as it's in the nation's best interest. The reasoning behind this measure is to obtain the 4bn in unpaid maintenance and remove 100,000 children from poverty.

Without financial aid many poor children can fall through the cracks in society, dropping out of school or ending up as criminals. The government aims to bring these children out of the poverty trap, either buy using government spending or getting the absent parents to pay up. It would be more beneficial to the government having the parents pay up, so that government funds can be used on other alternatives.

I don't think seizing passports would be too effective as many of these absent parents are from working class families that rarely go abroad. Although I think the measure of seizing driving licences may work.