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

Kirri

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

It's like me - I'm a single Mum. If I got with a partner I would fully expect him to bear financial responsibility for my daughter just as I would knowingly enter a serious relationship knowing that my hard earned wages would be going on maintenance should he have any kids of his own - that's what you do and if I don't want that then I find a man with no baggage.

I would never expect that of anyone I met if they were my children, I think that is quite a shocking thing to expect of a new partner!

alison999

Kirri wrote: »

I would never expect that of anyone I met if they were my children, I think that is quite a shocking thing to expect of a new partner!

it depends how new youre thinking... if youre moving in together/sharing finances then i think its reasonable

Calvinandhobbs

Kirri wrote: »

I would never expect that of anyone I met if they were my children, I think that is quite a shocking thing to expect of a new partner!

I think if you take the quote in context then she doesn't mean they should bear responsibility from day one, but rather after they became a settled couple, maybe from when they moved in together

LizzieS_2

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

Oh dear...now I am getting confused as post 44 refers to 'splitting money 4 ways'. Which would make sense as she refers to her children as 'both her children' and I am assuming that he has 2 from the piddling amount that he was originally assessed on and then even when it was increased.

So where do the 5 come from and out of those 5, 3 going to Uni?

Am I being blond here or is the poster being forgetful?

I thought I'd worked it out right from revisiting the first page - now I am confused too, so you're not the only blond.

Maybe the pwc of Kitty's partner is part of the 5? - though it doens't add up that you happily accept a child who totally belongs to 2 other individuals as family whilst objecting to paying £20pw for 2 legal children of one party to the relationship.

Totally lost now - Kitty can you enlighten us?

Loopy_Girl

Calvinandhobbs wrote: »

I think if you take the quote in context then she doesn't mean they should bear responsibility from day one, but rather after they became a settled couple, maybe from when they moved in together

That's exactly what I meant - sorry, should have clarified!!! I didn't mean he should be responsible from the first date!! I meant of we moved in together i.e it was clearly a serious relationship

Kirri

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

That's exactly what I meant - sorry, should have clarified!!! I didn't mean he should be responsible from the first date!! I meant of we moved in together i.e it was clearly a serious relationship

I wouldn't even expect it of any new partner and in new I meant as in a partner that wasn't the father (I didn't mean from the first date! :rotfl: ) I just don't see why someone else should bear responsibility for a child who already has a father - and I also wouldn't want to share financial responsibility for someone else's child if it was the other way round, same as I wouldn't want to share financial responsibility for any debts or whatever, life is hard enough money wise let alone taking on commitments someone else has decided to make and in the case of a child, who already has two parents who made that commitment to raise and provide for it. Likewise if I had a child who lived with the father, I wouldn't expect any new partner of theirs to have to bear financial responsibility.

but that's just me, I'm sure I'm in the minority though!!

overthehills

Kirri wrote: »

I wouldn't even expect it of any new partner and in new I meant as in a partner that wasn't the father (I didn't mean from the first date! :rotfl: ) I just don't see why someone else should bear responsibility for a child who already has a father - and I also wouldn't want to share financial responsibility for someone else's child if it was the other way round, same as I wouldn't want to share financial responsibility for any debts or whatever, life is hard enough money wise let alone taking on commitments someone else has decided to make and in the case of a child, who already has two parents who made that commitment to raise and provide for it. Likewise if I had a child who lived with the father, I wouldn't expect any new partner of theirs to have to bear financial responsibility.

but that's just me, I'm sure I'm in the minority though!!

Take this as a jokey comment please.
So, in your house, do you have food cupboards labled to determine what is yours and your childrens and what is your partners? When you take a family holiday, does your partner pay his share and you the rest for your family? How do you sort out the utility bills? Do you have allocated time slots to take it in turns to warm up by the fire and put 50p in the meter when time is up?

I just wondered how this works? My hubby has taken on responsability for my children. My ex contributes, but we are living together as a belnded family. When you start splitting who's is whos and who pays for what, kind of gives that lovely "Blended family" phrase a mockery.
I would be interested to know how you make it work?

Soubrette

Kungfukitty wrote: »

Gosh I hope you are not suggesting that we be punished severely for wanting to do the best by ALL our children! Things aren't that black and white. My kids don't give a monkey's that their father never gave any funds to their upkeep, they are however mortified that he could have left, not to see them for 10 years, without even any effort to get to see them. That damaged them, particularly my daughter who may never trust a man ever again. Him not paying doesn't even come into her thinking.

And who are you to say that we are spending lavishly on our lifestyle? We live on the breadline while the parent with care has three cars!! and a house full of hi-tech goodies. We have none of that, we don't earn much as we have THREE other kids between us we need to get through uni. There needs are greater at the moment thant the little ones, who live with their mother and have everything they need. We pay what we can but asking for money that goes to our older children is unforgivable. Thank heaven CSA saw the error and changed the rules

Kitty

Sorry Kitty, I was disagreeing with your comment that it is worse to deny access than to deny financial help with a general comment. Both are wrong imo and equally so, I also agree that absent NRP's can be as damaging, I'd lump them into the the other two 'crimes'.

I have no idea on what you spend your money nor do I care. I actually broadly agree with you - a NRPP income is no business of the CSA unless the NRP claims the NRPP subsidises his own income - then I think this income becomes fair game - I'm unfortunately in disagreement with the CSA on this one though.

I am puzzled though - I thought the older three children were yours - it seems that what's yours is ours but what's his is his in the way of children?

Perhaps I've misunderstood?

Sou

Soubrette

Kirri wrote: »

I wouldn't even expect it of any new partner and in new I meant as in a partner that wasn't the father (I didn't mean from the first date! :rotfl: ) I just don't see why someone else should bear responsibility for a child who already has a father - and I also wouldn't want to share financial responsibility for someone else's child if it was the other way round, same as I wouldn't want to share financial responsibility for any debts or whatever, life is hard enough money wise let alone taking on commitments someone else has decided to make and in the case of a child, who already has two parents who made that commitment to raise and provide for it. Likewise if I had a child who lived with the father, I wouldn't expect any new partner of theirs to have to bear financial responsibility.

but that's just me, I'm sure I'm in the minority though!!

How would that work in practice though Kirri?

The only way I can think of making it work is that all costs are divided by each person in the family and then attributed to the relevant adult. So one PWC, 2 children and one PWCP with no children all live together - PWC pays 3/4 of all costs - PWCP pays 1/4?

But does each adult "consume" as much as each child?

I dunno but I would be interested in your thoughts as I tend to think the PWCP is the most hard done by our little blended families - they are supposed to take on a role as part of a family with children, they subsidise the new family (assuming costs are split 50/50) and they are expected to understand and take this on without complaint. Looking at this board - the most amazing (and wonderful) thing is that they don't actually seem to complain at all - unlike the rest of us;)

Sou

LizzieS_2

Soubrette wrote: »

I actually broadly agree with you - a NRPP income is no business of the CSA unless the NRP claims the NRPP subsidises his own income - then I think this income becomes fair game - I'm unfortunately in disagreement with the CSA on this one though.

I agree it should be nothing to do with the csa, but I also think 2 adults of both households should equally share housing costs for csa purposes irrespective of what they actually do. The csa legislation has effectively been kind to non-working NRPP's and non-working PWCP's, so personally I would summarise the reason for this provision is to actually protect others of the same 'title' who don't work.

it seems that what's yours is ours but what's his is his in the way of children?

From the other information provided, I read it simply as Kitty's partner has never been anywhere near an equal contributor towards their household and the csa is just a final blow to friction already there.

Sou

Your PWCP is a very good point - across 3 forums I only ever saw one complain, and that was not due to having to pay himself, but the fact the csa hadn't sorted a LO out for his partner's non-compliant ex.