Company Directors & CSA

Soubrette

chriszzz wrote: »

Soubrette wrote: »

Everyone has their own way of adding up costs to raise their child and adding petty things is certainly not mine.

I don't think we disagree on much here actually. I certainly do believe some PWCs are abusive although I am stunned how many of them are alleged abusive on here yet the NRP doesn't go to social services about them :eek:

I recognise what you are saying about the PWCP making the household pot larger and hence a larger amount is spent on the children - I happen to agree with this and I personally would not be with a man who did not see my children and I as part of a family package - and yet though, it still sits uncomfortably with me how many NRPP's want absolutely nothing to do with financing their partner's other children and yet for the PWCP it is actually almost a given that they will.

As to being petty - I didn't include electricity/water/council tax costs in my spreadsheet in my discussion with the ex because I wanted to be scrupulous that I could back up my costs - and I didn't want to derail the conversation with a debate on how much electricity they do actually use.... but if the ex starts getting petty on how cheap children are, then he will be served the same dish back financially.

Sou

chriszzz

If the nrp is paying maintenance towards raising there children, then he is financially adhering to his commitments.

If pwc want to add on costs of mobile phones, charges laptops then i think in fairness before purchasing these added items and want to use it towards the cost of raising children then i think they owe it to the nrp to check it out with them to see if they can afford to contribute more towards these costs.

To Sou and Kellogs,
I did not say that the pwcp should pay towards the nrp children I was stating that there was more money in the household funds and that the family do not live in poverty.
I think the world knows that pwcp does not pay for pwc children to be raised so i don't know why you both were implying that i think they should....just because i stated there were more money in the money pot and that some pwc go to the lengths of adding up how many washes and cost of soap powder to wash the children s clothes, you will have to put your new partners clothes on a separate wash as you will be abusing the maintenance your ex pays you to wash the childrens clothes.:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Soubrette

chriszzz wrote: »

If the nrp is paying maintenance towards raising there children, then he is financially adhering to his commitments.

If pwc want to add on costs of mobile phones, charges laptops then i think in fairness before purchasing these added items and want to use it towards the cost of raising children then i think they owe it to the nrp to check it out with them to see if they can afford to contribute more towards these costs.

But if he is paying a fair share of income as maintenance then the NRP should not be being asked to cough up for these extras. However, the NRP should also not complain if normal maintenance payments are used to pay for things like this.

To Sou and Kellogs,
I did not say that the pwcp should pay towards the nrp children I was stating that there was more money in the household funds and that the family do not live in poverty.
I think the world knows that pwcp does not pay for pwc children to be raised so i don't know why you both were implying that i think they should....just because i stated there were more money in the money pot and that some pwc go to the lengths of adding up how many washes and cost of soap powder to wash the children s clothes, you will have to put your new partners clothes on a separate wash as you will be abusing the maintenance your ex pays you to wash the childrens clothes.:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I'm confused - if the pwcp puts more money in the household funds then how can they be anything else but contributing to all costs of the household including raising the children?

For your last point - that is one of the resentments from some NRPs - that they feel their maintenance payments do not go directly and only directly towards the children. However, I would say that there advantages and disadvantages to being both the PWC and the NRP. For example speedster says that he has a 3 bed house and would whether or not he has children. I only have a 3 bed house because I have children. If I had no children then I'd be happier in a smaller 2 bed because there would be less cleaning and less associated costs such as heating. However, there is no doubt that I benefit in the capital increase of a 3 bed as opposed to the 2 bed one I would be living in. However my NRP benefits because I deal with all the issues of bringing up children, illness/appointments/school holidays etc so he does not have the worry about taking time off work at all, ever.

Sou

kelloggs36

chriszzz wrote: »

If the nrp is paying maintenance towards raising there children, then he is financially adhering to his commitments.

If pwc want to add on costs of mobile phones, charges laptops then i think in fairness before purchasing these added items and want to use it towards the cost of raising children then i think they owe it to the nrp to check it out with them to see if they can afford to contribute more towards these costs.

To Sou and Kellogs,
I did not say that the pwcp should pay towards the nrp children I was stating that there was more money in the household funds and that the family do not live in poverty. There is, but bet your bottom dollar that the PWCP does not refuse to contribute towards the costs of what the children need. My husband took the full costs of bringing up a child which was not his because my ex refused to - did I complain? No, but we still had to make sacrifices such as no holidays because we didn't have the money - even when I went to work.
I think the world knows that pwcp does not pay for pwc children to be raised see above because in some cases they do so i don't know why you both were implying that i think they should....just because i stated there were more money in the money pot and that some pwc go to the lengths of adding up how many washes and cost of soap powder to wash the children s clothes, you will have to put your new partners clothes on a separate wash as you will be abusing the maintenance your ex pays you to wash the childrens clothes.:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:No because my own money also goes to contribute towards this actually:p If I did them separately or together doesn't change the overall costs - but if I didn't have them at all would drastically change the costs.

chriszzz

Soubrette wrote: »

But if he is paying a fair share of income as maintenance then the NRP should not be being asked to cough up for these extras. However, the NRP should also not complain if normal maintenance payments are used to pay for things like this. Totally agree.



I'm confused - if the pwcp puts more money in the household funds then how can they be anything else but contributing to all costs of the household including raising the children? but you were implying that I was suggesting that the pwcp income was to help raise the nrps children, I never suggested or expected that pwcp pay towards nrps children. I was stating that there is more money in that household towards other costs. If pwc wants to use the pwcp income towards raising their children alongside what the nrp contributes, then that is their own business

For your last point - that is one of the resentments from some NRPs - that they feel their maintenance payments do not go directly and only directly towards the children. If some pwc want to add every detailed cost to raise a child and dictate this to the nrp, then i can understand why some nrp feel this resentment However, I would say that there advantages and disadvantages to being both the PWC and the NRP. For example speedster says that he has a 3 bed house and would whether or not he has children. I only have a 3 bed house because I have children. If I had no children then I'd be happier in a smaller 2 bed because there would be less cleaning and less associated costs such as heating. However, there is no doubt that I benefit in the capital increase of a 3 bed as opposed to the 2 bed one I would be living in. However my NRP benefits because I deal with all the issues of bringing up children, illness/appointments/school holidays etc so he does not have the worry about taking time off work at all, ever.

Sou

As for the last part in your post, I can fully understand why you may feel angry towards your ex, he should be paying towards there costs also not allowed to get away with his emotional responsibilities.

They are lucky that they have a mother like you to give them what she possibly can and most importantly the love you have for them which makes you go that extra mile for your children. There are some children who dont even have that.

chriszzz

kelloggs36 wrote: »

chriszzz wrote: »

If the nrp is paying maintenance towards raising there children, then he is financially adhering to his commitments.

If pwc want to add on costs of mobile phones, charges laptops then i think in fairness before purchasing these added items and want to use it towards the cost of raising children then i think they owe it to the nrp to check it out with them to see if they can afford to contribute more towards these costs.

To Sou and Kellogs,
I did not say that the pwcp should pay towards the nrp children I was stating that there was more money in the household funds and that the family do not live in poverty. There is, but bet your bottom dollar that the PWCP does not refuse to contribute towards the costs of what the children need. My husband took the full costs of bringing up a child which was not his because my ex refused to - did I complain? No, but we still had to make sacrifices such as no holidays because we didn't have the money - even when I went to work. Kellogs I haven't got a problem with pwc wanting what is rightly due to them by the nrp to financially contribute to raise their children but I think to start adding detailed costs is a bit over the top, Yeah! I agree your ex should of contributed and shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. I think its mighty decent that your husband helps with this and that makes him a better person but i never suggested that he should or should be expected to!
I think the world knows that pwcp does not pay for pwc children to be raised see above because in some cases they do so i don't know why you both were implying that i think they should....just because i stated there were more money in the money pot and that some pwc go to the lengths of adding up how many washes and cost of soap powder to wash the children s clothes, you will have to put your new partners clothes on a separate wash as you will be abusing the maintenance your ex pays you to wash the childrens clothes.:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:No because my own money also goes to contribute towards this actually:p If I did them separately or together doesn't change the overall costs - but if I didn't have them at all would drastically change the costs.

The last part of this post made me laff (:p) Am only expressing my opinion and I will never go to them levels of adding soap powder to the cost even tho it does, I just think its ott.

kelloggs36

You may but it is a legitimate cost which in theory (as ALL costs of children should be counted) should be split between both parents - that's all I'm saying.

kelloggs36

No, I haven't given my ex a bill broken down - I was merely pointing out that these are additional costs which count towards the cost of children - that's why I counted them. I would also count the additional food I buy, plus the extra gas and electricity that I pay, and the petrol in running them around to visit friends etc, etc, etc. So no, it isn't ott to count all the costs, this is what adds up and gets forgotten in the grand scheme of things.

LizzieS_2

chriszzz wrote: »

Am only expressing my opinion and I will never go to them levels of adding soap powder to the cost even tho it does, I just think its ott.

It isn't OTT though if you genuinely want to work out exactly how much your partners children cost compared to what he/she pays. Without adding the direct and indirect costs, you will never get anything resembling a correct answer and will therefore be under the illusion he/she is paying a much greater share than they actually are.

From a personal view point, my ex admits I have additional indirect expenses and doesn't waste his life wondering how much I pay towards our children compared to him.

chriszzz

LizzieS wrote: »

It isn't OTT though if you genuinely want to work out exactly how much your partners children cost compared to what he/she pays. Without adding the direct and indirect costs, you will never get anything resembling a correct answer and will therefore be under the illusion he/she is paying a much greater share than they actually are.

From a personal view point, my ex admits I have additional indirect expenses and doesn't waste his life wondering how much I pay towards our children compared to him.

Thats your opinion and thats all it is!! like mine, its just my opinion!! If i want to have the opinion that I think its ridiculous having to add soap powder as part of costs and how much I of it I use on the childrens clothes, well eeermmm i think ov better things to be working out, like Get a life!!