They are not my kids so why do I have to pay?

overthehills

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

since you are another one who would rather their partner hadn't had sex and conceived before they met you:D

Maybe the PWC should think about that before she took off her knickers and opened her legs! Then after NRP moved on with HIS life, she got all assy and then changed the childs surname. I think you'll find that many NRPP's only want the best for their other halves. Of course there are those that don't. We all have our own stories to tell. My partner does, but after he moved on with his life, he was weedled out of his childs then to discover the PWC had changed the child's surname because she'd re married. Of course, hubs money is still good enough isn't it? Many of these PWC should remember how the child was conceived in the first place. Out of love and respect i should hope. Funny how it all goes tit's up when the gloves come off.

kelloggs36

Of course hubby's money is good enough as he is the child's father regardless of what has happened between him and the PWC - that will never change. I feel extremely sad for NRPs who have been ostricised from their children, and hope that they can fight for their rights for maintained contact with them, but it doesn't change the fact that they still have a financial responsibility towards them - that is a risk every father takes when they agree to have children.

skibadee

kelloggs36 wrote: »

Of course hubby's money is good enough as he is the child's father regardless of what has happened between him and the PWC - that will never change. I feel extremely sad for NRPs who have been ostricised from their children, and hope that they can fight for their rights for maintained contact with them, but it doesn't change the fact that they still have a financial responsibility towards them - that is a risk every father takes when they agree to have children.

and MOTHERS as NOT ALL NRPS are fathers!!

Strapped

The OP has got what they wanted I think, NRP(P)s & PWCs at each others throats. Like we don't get enough IRL.

overthehills

kelloggs36 wrote: »

Of course hubby's money is good enough as he is the child's father regardless of what has happened between him and the PWC - that will never change.

Exactly, yet some PWC seem to forget this when they separate. The NRP suddenmly not being good enough as a father!

kelloggs36 wrote: »

but it doesn't change the fact that they still have a financial responsibility towards them - that is a risk every father takes when they agree to have children.

It's more than a financial responsibilty kellogs, what about the parental responsability they are being denied? I think the risk every man should think about when having children is if we split, will I ever see my kids again?

Loopy_Girl

And I think what every woman should think about when having children is, if we ever split, will he want anything to do with his kid(s) financial or otherwise?

As you keep saying, it works well on both sides and not every man is like your hubby who wants to pay and see his kids.

Just like every woman is not a decent human being thinking about their children before their purse strings.

Soubrette

Strapped wrote: »

The OP has got what they wanted I think, NRP(P)s & PWCs at each others throats. Like we don't get enough IRL.

Awww don't think that Strapped

I think everyone is broadly in agreement - don't drag the children into your adult arguments.

Parents should act responsibily with their children and try to put the children's best interests above their own.

If one parent is unable to do that, then the other parent should bite the bullet and be the one that is disadvantaged for the sake of the children.

The other issues are really just that one, not every parent is a decent and/or honest parent. Each case is individual and it is hard to judge from a few posts if someone is decent and honest or just trying to do over the other parent and the children be blowed.

and two, far more likely, most parents who can't agree think they are decent and honest but find it hard to see the other side of the picture. They believe they are acting in the best interests of the children but often cannot see (to a greater or lesser extent) beyond their own interests.

Apart from me - I'm very fair minded :rotfl:

Sou

kelloggs36

I agree, but what about the parental responsibility that many NRPS are allowed to walk away from??
Of course hubby's money is good enough as he is the child's father regardless of what has happened between him and the PWC

I said this in respect of NRP being male because MOST children remain with the woman.

13Kent

Wow! What a lot of interesting posts!

I agree that everyone has a story to tell, and for what it's worth here is ours...

As a Nrp I feel that it should be my choice as to whether to contribute financially towards my OH's children. In fact I have done so, before we lived together I bought them clothes and toys, encouraged my OH to set up bank accounts and child trust funds for their future, and supported him after his ex had tried to ruin him financially by running up credit card bills, phone bills, utility bills etc before going off with someone else (more than once). The bills were all in his name and came back to haunt him/us years after they had separated as she never paid any of them.

He also paid her regularly, and she claimed income support and then told the CSA that he had paid her nothing. Due to his financial situation he paid her cash - in hindsight he realises the stupidity of this and he ended up with a large arrears bill too.

We have been told by a CSA employee that if we were on CSA 2 we would be paying less than half what we are currently paying and have been paying for a number of years. (that doesn't include the arrears by the way). We feel this is extremely unfair.

I object to the fact that my wages are taken into account, but the Pwc's partners are not. they both work, but are assessed as having Nil income - apparently getting WTC is classed as a benefit and therefore they are deemed to have no income). They appear to be significantly financially better off than us, having the money to completely re-decorate/ revamp the house, new furniture, kitchen, bathroom, etc as well as lots of latest gadgets, big tv etc etc. They also have a foreign holiday every year - including one to disney Florida. - all on NIL income. We cannot afford these luxuries for our children.

We decided to move in together, get married and have children as we wanted to get on with our lives and move on. we knew that ultimately as far as the CSA were concerned this would mean we would have to pay more, but you know what she'd already ruined a big part of his life and to live apart just because it was the cheaper option meant he wouldn't ever move on with his life.

We see his children as often as we can, maybe not as regularly as we'd like, but the PWC tries all sorts of dirty tricks to make them want to be with her not us. I could elaborate, but I'm sure those in a similar position will understand this.

One other comment I'd like to make was that someone commented on the OP supporting a child that was 18 and in University. The comment made was that an 18 year old is not a child. If that is the case then why does the NRP have to continue to contribute to a child until they are 19 if they continue in certain types of education?

Unfortunately like all things CSA it's one rule for one person, and a completely different rule for another. It's like going into a shop and being told you have to pay £3 for a bottle of milk but the person next to you only has to pay £1.

Sadly it causes bad feeling on both sides in what is often already a volatile situation, and more often than not it's the children that inevitably lose whether it be financially or emotionally from the lack of contact with both parents - often a situation engendered by the CSA as PWC on CSA 2 are encouraged to reduce contact for financial reward.

northwest1965

DaisyFlower wrote: »

Regardless of your partners ex's financial situtaion, he still has a duty to support his children. You knew he had children so paying child support is part and parcel of that.

Your own children are now adults and shouldnt need supporting financially, most students find part time work to top up their student loans and grants.

Working a job that barely brings in any money may need reviewing, perhaps then the household income will be enough to support both sets of children and not just your own.

God this makes my blood boil. As a partner of someone who has 2 kids (and supports above & beyond what he should I might add).
Yes I knew he had kids but why should I support them or indeed his ex wife. It was their decision to have these kids!
I think when all the BM's new partners/husband financies are taken into account then thats the time to look at mine.