Please define what "Child Maintenance" Covers

Mark666666

Cheers Blonde Bint. I have my 'Mediation' freebie to look forward to shortly, followed by the £140 per session thereafter if I go down that road! Great - NOT! What a total waste of my money. As I said previously, I could have sat down with him and sorted something out in 5 minutes. Pathetic but true how I'm still waking up at 3 or 4 in the morning and trying to fathom my son's complete disregard for me and my feelings. I must be mental! Ironic when you read stories of fathers who do a runner when their kids are born, yet their kids actually come looking for THEM etc! Strange world we live in innit? Values are all over the show.

Just 2 of the Mediation meetings and I could have bought a new TV. Instead it will line a solicitors pocket. It's at times like this I feel like 'cutting my nose to spite my face' and jacking work in and sticking two fingers up to the lot of em. Who knows, I might just, if I get that peed off. Wouldn't that be an eye wipe!

Blonde_Bint

lol :rotfl:

yeah when you put it like that 'would have paid for a new television' I get where your coming from. waste of time and money for all concerned cept the solicitor.:mad:

As for the job, lol you'd be bored rigid after about 2 weeks, oh sure all the lie ins you can handle but all that free time and no money to do anything:D sounds better in thought than reality.

Doney had a brain wave in order to pay our CM we may have to 'do' our own parents for CM just to pay the rent lol :rotfl:

Dancing_Shoes

Soubrette wrote: »

Sorry Mark, I didn't mean to imply that these cases in any way mirrored yours - these cases are the kind of thing that will brought out by any prosecuting lawyer to show there is a precedent for NRPs to pay maintenance to their children for university educations. If it was a given that everyone would be successful then the CSA would include university. We were told by our solicitor (not that uni is a possibility for the children of the 1st marriage:rolleyes:) that it is on the childs shoulders to prove what they need the money for and how much and it has to be realistic. We were also told that they would NOT expect the nrp to pay ALL of the university costs as it is recognised that Uni is a choice and they would expect to see that both parents and child were all contributing and although it would be the nrp the child would be taking to court, it can be used in the nrp's case if the pwc is not contributing. This was all from a good solicitor but as I said it was not a case and we wouldn't be in that situation.


I'm afraid I can't find anything at all where someone has sued their non resident parent (you can't sue the resident one in the same situation) and their case has been thrown out - but maybe a proper solicitor would have some answers for you. There will be many cases that you can't find online and many cases that threaten then settle. Don't be dis-heartened.

Sou

This case makes me so cross it stinks of being ungrateful and Uni IS a choice and one that is a choice for the child so if they are unable to fund this then sorry but they shouldn't apply
What happened to standing on your own 2 feet once you are an "adult" or should we all sponge off our parents forever??
Is it a solicitor that has suggested mediation?

I can to a degree see why the CSA are in business as people should contribute to the upbringing of their children but when they are adults then I think it is a lesson in life to stand on your own 2 feet! As for your ex then she really deserves everything that life throws at her and more:mad:

Soubrette

CSA powers and the right of a child for maintenance through university are separate legal issues. In one it is the PWCs right to maintenance for the child and in the other it is the child who is asking for maintenance to be paid directly to them.

It is a fact that most parents are pleased that their children get to go through university and do support them in a variety of ways, not just financial.

It is also true that a minority of parents don't support their children in any way and some actually hinder their children's choice of wanting to get a degree.

The shame of this type of case is that the NRP has the choice taken away from them, unlike the resident parent who cannot be sued for support.

Although if the child moves out from both homes - maybe both parents would be non resident

I feel that either both parents should be liable for maintenance to students or neither of them.

Sou

Dancing_Shoes

Soubrette wrote: »

CSA powers and the right of a child for maintenance through university are separate legal issues. In one it is the PWCs right to maintenance for the child and in the other it is the child who is asking for maintenance to be paid directly to them.

It is a fact that most parents are pleased that their children get to go through university and do support them in a variety of ways, not just financial. I valued the emotional support rather than financial, after all its nice to remember that when we have children we don't have them with the intention of paying for them FOREVER

It is also true that a minority of parents don't support their children in any way and some actually hinder their children's choice of wanting to get a degree. I agree that there are parents who are not in a position to help their children through university but a degree is a personal choice and like many thiings in life if you can't afford it then don't apply:rolleyes:

The shame of this type of case is that the NRP has the choice taken away from them, unlike the resident parent who cannot be sued for support.

Although if the child moves out from both homes - maybe both parents would be non resident

I feel that either both parents should be liable for maintenance to students or neither of them.

Sou

I agree I am sure most of us would have more pride than to allow the nrp to pay for their child through uni whilst not contributing ourselves but there will always be the lower end of society (put in the most pleasant way;)) that will want every penny they can get their little mitts on:rolleyes:

Soubrette

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

I agree I am sure most of us would have more pride than to allow the nrp to pay for their child through uni whilst not contributing ourselves but there will always be the lower end of society (put in the most pleasant way;)) that will want every penny they can get their little mitts on:rolleyes:

I think it's sad to think that if you can't afford to go to university then don't apply it's supposed to be a meritocracy based on intelligence, not based on wealth (and lets face it - this would be the wealth of your parents, not many 18 year olds are wealthy in their own right).

Most parents do make some contribution even if it's sending a few food parcels, letting a child stay at home rent free when they study etc, as well as the emotional support so it would be a rare family where the NRP pays for everything and the PWC pays nothing - when I say rare I mean pretty much non existent. As your solicitor has pointed out - the courts would not expect the NRP to stump up all of the costs of university anyway.

Plus the PWC wouldn't get their greedy mitts on it - it would go to the university student. Again I can't really imagine any situation where a student would be passing on their maintenance money to the PWC whilst accruing debts themselves.

Spite and hatred for the NRP might be a motivating factor for the PWC but filthy lucre for themselves? I honestly doubt it.

Sou

AnxiousMum

mitchaa wrote: »

I agree a father should pay for his child but in todays world the cost of living is so high, that a 15/20/25% deduction of net wages could mean a father leaving his job due to it not being financially viable.

Who then suffers? The father, the mother and his child, and for what??

This is very real.... Me, myself, i know of 2 men who have done just exactly that, im sure there are thousands if not tens of thousands of fathers nationwide who have done exactly the same.

If i had to pay 25% of my wage, i too would have to give up work as i do not have 25% left over after all my monthly deductions. I simply would not be able to put food on the table.

Expenditure like mortgages should definitely be taken into account, especially at the moment where cost of living is through the roof. My mortgage alone is just over 40% of my take home wage.

Then would you not agree that you are in over your head with your mortgage? Your housing cost should never be more than 30% of your pay - if it is, you cannot afford it.

As for 'using child maintenance to fund the boyfriends BMW'.......um, maybe the fact the poster is paying child support, it frees up some of the mothers and her boyfriends funds so that he can maybe spend some of his money on himself?

Yes there are some money grubbing pwc's out there......there are also some disillusioned NCP's out there who abhore the thought that their money is given to their ex to ensure their contribution to the wellbeing of their child. Get over it or slap on a condom next time if you're not prepared for the lifetime commitment of providing for a minor.

13Kent

I have to say I am horrified and scared at reading these posts.. We have been counting the time until we have the choice of what to do with our money.

I assumed that once the 'child' got to university as a NRP and partner, we couldn't be compelled to pay any more, but it was our choice to support that child.

It shows the unfairness of the system once again if the child can take the NRP to court, but not the PWC - what happens if they refuse to contribute?

Sadly the case of Mark666666 and similar cases will make some NRP's and their partners and families be less inclined to encourage the children that live with the PWC to continue with their education as some wouldn't want to be forced to contribute, and maybe others genuinely couldn't afford to do so.

LizzieS_2

I find this whole thread strange, it seems more about who should pay what, when it should be about the best interests of the offspring.

From a personal persective, as a couple we decided to encourage our children to aim for university. Now separated, we still both do the same.

Our initial intention as a couple was to fund our childrens further education. To be fair, we haven't discussed university costs since, but my ex certainly would not take kindly to me evicting our child just because I would have to pay her living costs from my salary, equally I would not expect him to take her in and pay everything from his salary.

University is about a balance, not a me me me attitude from either parent.

frugallass

The way I look at it is that if the parents were still together they would have probably discussed putting money away to pay for the university fees - therefore the PWC should put some of the NRP's maintenance money away, as well as their own contribution.