Please define what "Child Maintenance" Covers

frugallass

LizzieS wrote: »

University isn't the choice it once was - in todays changing world, more and more children are needing the degree to simply get a minimum wage job (employers are simply picking higher qualified people

LizzieS wrote: »

Comment on university being a greater help in working came from experiences of myself & others from within a working environment.

So that was just your personal experience?

That's fine but it might not be the case all over the country

frugallass

LizzieS wrote: »

For the control, I was reading your post over your own pwc as suggesting I was saying nrp should pay pwc - which I wasn't.

I did answer your question over half the cost - I explained how both parents could make contributions in different ways, I deliberately did not state equal or half as it is impossible even under csa/court orders for both parents to make equal contributions - in other words I do not believe it to be possible in most situations.

I don't quite understand the first paragraph

Parents want what is best for their kids but sometimes the money just isn't there to contribute - we contribute what we can but the ex seems to think we should contribute more

LizzieS_2

frugallass wrote: »

I don't quite understand the first paragraph

I think we are linking to different quotes of each other here. I was reading you as saying I was suggesting each should pay & pwc should control the expenses - since explained that one again as it was not what I was saying. The post you copied didn't relate to what I was reading at all, for that one I simply stated that the change of couple to singles would not always give the opportunity that could have been there to financially save from exisiting income during csa years (I think you were reading one sentence rather than all the post).

I think you are looking at this from your personal situation whereas I am looking at it as a whole - both of us are actually saying each should make a contribution and neither believe it is a specific amount/equal by both parents. Do we really disagree?

LizzieS_2

frugallass wrote: »

So that was just your personal experience?

That's fine but it might not be the case all over the country

Hmm I said more than just my experience. Agree different parts of the country can be different - most comes down to job availability and numbers applying.

Taking the obvious comparisons: 2 leave college with good grades, one goes to uni and the other is unfortunately unemployed for 3 years and does nothing other than apply for jobs. Which is most likely to seem more employable (in reality, both could do as well as each other workwise, it is the first impressions I'm looking at)?

Dancing_Shoes

LizzieS wrote: »

University isn't the choice it once was - in todays changing world, more and more children are needing the degree to simply get a minimum wage job (employers are simply picking higher qualified people).

Personally I wouldn't feel any differently if I didn't want my child to go to university - I would accept their choice and do my best to help.

Then that contradicts what you said earlier? You said that if both parents had decided when together that their plans were to send their children to uni then they should still honour that promise but although you are saying that you are looking at it from all angles you say the same about uni even if there was no agreement to begin with. It then becomes something the nrp HAS to pay for but didn't want:rolleyes:

LizzieS_2

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

Then that contradicts what you said earlier? You said that if both parents had decided when together that their plans were to send their children to uni then they should still honour that promise but although you are saying that you are looking at it from all angles you say the same about uni even if there was no agreement to begin with. It then becomes something the nrp HAS to pay for but didn't want:rolleyes:

No contradiction at all - note I never specified amounts

Dancing_Shoes

LizzieS wrote: »

No contradiction at all - note I never specified amounts

But you said that if they had agreed to send their children to uni they should still honour what they agreed....but then said regardless whether they agreed they should still do it???

frugallass

Thanks Dancing Shoes - I thought it was just me getting confused !

frugallass

LizzieS wrote: »

I think we are linking to different quotes of each other here. I was reading you as saying I was suggesting each should pay & pwc should control the expenses - since explained that one again as it was not what I was saying. The post you copied didn't relate to what I was reading at all, for that one I simply stated that the change of couple to singles would not always give the opportunity that could have been there to financially save from exisiting income during csa years (I think you were reading one sentence rather than all the post).

I think you are looking at this from your personal situation whereas I am looking at it as a whole - both of us are actually saying each should make a contribution and neither believe it is a specific amount/equal by both parents. Do we really disagree?

Nope I said that I didn't understand your paragraph - ie it didn't make any sense at all (gramatically). I think you're confusing matters even more by trying to explain.

Of course I am looking it from a personal experience, that's why I am here and that's why I feel 'qualified' to comment on the issue.

I haven't really disagreed with anything that you said, I have asked for clarification on a couple of matters that's all.

frugallass

LizzieS wrote: »

Hmm I said more than just my experience. Agree different parts of the country can be different - most comes down to job availability and numbers applying.

Taking the obvious comparisons: 2 leave college with good grades, one goes to uni and the other is unfortunately unemployed for 3 years and does nothing other than apply for jobs. Which is most likely to seem more employable (in reality, both could do as well as each other workwise, it is the first impressions I'm looking at)?

hmm - oh yeah you said 'others' - so that's the rest of the country is it?

you're twittering on and making no sense (to me anyway)