csa and redundancy

Soubrette

hamstercheeks wrote: »

i have to agree with woody tbh

what sort of PWC gets a huge lump sum yet lives in a slum (albeit gets more than £1500 a month on benny fits) and gets a lot of child support from the ex?

But your case is not an average case though is it?

From what you've said about your PWC, she is vindictive and manipulative - most PWCs aren't like that just like most NRPs are not weasily non payers, intent on paying as little as possible to their own children because they'd rather spend it all on themselves.

In fact if I said that about your husband then you would be (rightly so) be very insulted, so although my ex is like that - I refuse to tar all NRPs with the same brush

Sou

hamstercheeks_2

it's the kids that suffer at the end of the day.

one day,.............eventually when he sees his kids he will produce bank statements proving he has funded them all the way, contrary to what they are being told.

woody01

Soubrette wrote: »

Why shouldn't a NRP then take responsibility for half the time spent by the PWC - if you only want to pay for half the cost of the child then you should take responsibility for half the time.

So if you have three children and they come down with chickenpox one after another (this happened to a single mum who is a friend of mine) you both take 3 weeks off work to cover the illnesses.

Likewise the school phones because your child feels sick, the PWC dealt with it last time, now it's your turn to explain to work why you're leaving early and you're not sure if you'll be back tomorrow. You also have to let them know that no, you won't be able to do any overtime as you have family commitments and you can bet your bottom dollar that when that promotion comes up - you're probably not committed enough to the company to get it.

Of course you have school holidays to cover too - that'll be 6.5 weeks every year of trying to arrange childcare.

But maybe both the NRP and PWC work full time - so your child gets to go to both empty houses, make their own meals and look forward to one or other of their parents getting on about 6pm and perhaps leaving at 8am in the morning, then the parents wonder why said child goes out all day with their friends and doesn't really care to put their parents as a high priority in life as they sure as hell aren't in either of their lives

Or look at your other argument - PWC works part time and earns £600 a month and NRP works full time and earns £1200 a month - the kid should be better off with the higher earner right? Hmmm hang on a minute, now the former NRP has the child and realises that actually looking after a kid is a job in itself - their hours go down. The former PWC however had just been promoted because now they show a commitment to the job that they did not have before - do we swap again? After all the former PWC now earns more than the former NRP - because having children in themselves lead to choices that almost invariable lead to a lower income.

In general a PWC sacrifices time (and career potential) and a NRP sacrifices money (and relationship with the children potential) - the PWC doesn't get to say what the NRP does with his time and the NRP doesn't get to say what the PWC does with the money.

BTW I certainly don't take offence at what you assume my problem to be - I am trying to put to you both sides of an equation and it says a lot to me that you are the sort of person who only sees one. People like you are why the CSA exists unfortunately

Sou

Please take a second look at my post then re-read what you have written.
You didnt take any of my points in at all.

Just read what you imagined.

Are you the sort of NRP who would rather see his children have a more impoverished life than see the PWC potentially benefit at all?

And this just strengthens the fact that you have read nothing and imagined everything.
I already stated I AM NOT an NRP.

Soubrette

hamstercheeks wrote: »

it's the kids that suffer at the end of the day.

one day,.............eventually when he sees his kids he will produce bank statements proving he has funded them all the way, contrary to what they are being told.

I've said it before hc, I honestly think that what people put into a relationship will be paid back - the bad things as well as the good things. There are many PWCs with adult children who bemoan the fact that their children prefer to spend time with the NRP.

I hope you get it sorted before they are grown up though.

Sou

Soubrette

woody01 wrote: »

Please take a second look at my post then re-read what you have written.
You didnt take any of my points in at all.

Just read what you imagined.

I wondered how it would feel if I did the same to you as you did to me

Sou

Having to edit as you did to yours - the question about what kind of NRP you are was a rhetorical question about how you would act if you were NRP - sorry for not making that clear, I am aware that you are not an NRP and are probably quite young with a black and white view of the world.

I am also aware that my arguments are likely to make little truck with you but I always live in hope that there are some fair minded people out there who originally felt like you but then see another side to the argument.

woody01

Soubrette wrote: »

I wondered how it would feel if I did the same to you as you did to me

Sou

I will tell you why you just read nothing and comment.

It is obvious from your posts that you have been in this situation and have become sour and twisted as a result

Soubrette

woody01 wrote: »

I will tell you why you just read nothing and comment.

It is obvious from your posts that you have been in this situation and have become sour and twisted as a result

Of course

Thankfully neither your condemnation nor your approbation mean anything to me - what is important that people realise the NRP and PWC both face a difficult job and that it's not a case of one getting an easy ride at the expense of the other.

Now if you have nothing further to add to the discussion to forward your original point of view - I shall take it we have finished :rotfl:

Sou

Blob

Hi Sou

You put your points as eliquently as ever. as I see it and this is form my experiance in helping a number of people, as the coy that I work for their personal dept refers anyone with CSA probs to me as well as some from the local CAB, as well as word of mouth. We are talking about a fair few people here, and I do it for nothing even though people tell me I should charge as the succes that I have in making peoples lives better is very good and that is a quote from an on looker! I also take cases from both sides of the street.

You do a very good job of trying to look at this problem from both sides, however and I have no problem with this and it is only an observation, you would seem to want a perfect world, that is not here.

PWC do use the system to extort as much money out of their ex's as pos, it is human nature you are talking about! Their pride and feelings have been hurt and trampled on, it therefor is a natural reaction to want to get back at the person that you percive as being responsible for this!

On the other hand the NRP sees all the money going out and haveing to struggle, and as in my case the PWC's house hold has a far grater income than mine! The PWC also gets income from other sorces that will not be taken into account. To maintan and exploite this further the PWC then ristricts contact to max the income from their ex who will have the children and have to pay for than at the same time as he is paying someone else to look after them, and you wounder why they then get a little pieved.

Accepted in the perfict world most of the prob would not exist, however we live in an imperfict world and suffer for this. The thing that you have to remember is that we are dealing with human nature and that is a dangerious thing when stable, never mind when rocked by the CSA! You also have to remember that in some cases girls see getting pregnent as a way out of the situation they are in and see the CSA as a meal ticket. You will forgive me but when the CSA was set up it was and I quote " to end the meal ticket for life attitude" well it failed there then!

Soubrette

Thanks Blob

I have to admit that in my experience it is the male NRPs who are the idiots and feckless ones.

One dad has no contact with his children through choice and gives up work as soon as the CSA find him - PWC has now given up.
Anther Dad is now a househusband looking after someone else's children so pays nothing towards his 3.
One dad picks up his kids late Fri (about 9pm) puts them straight to bed and drops them off Sun morning (about 8am) before breakfast. Not only is then a 2/7th reduction in his maintenance but he refuses to acknowledge that that reduction is because he has expenses and pays nothing - when they were small the PWC had to provide everything they needed such as nappies etc. He does pay for their food on the Saturday though.
Another dad pays statutory maintenance but is too busy with his new family to see his old family at all.

On the plus side I know of a Dad who paid maintenance even when unemployed - his new partner placed such a high priority that she actually paid it for him.

Another Dad not only sees his natural child but his two step children (although he doesn't pay maintenance for them) as he has been their dad for most of their lives.

I only know of one female NRP - and don't tell anyone but for 9 months that was me I paid £40 per month into the girls account as well as buying clothes and sundries for them (I left the house with nothing), I saw them every day and when I was in a position for them to live with me, they chose to do so.

So in my limited experience it is the male NRPs who are the irresponsible ones but in yours it is the PWCs - how can that be Blob?

Two words - confirmation bias.

I still firmly believe that most people want whats best for their children and that people who have good relations with the other parent just don't tend to gab on about it.:cool:

Sou

catenorfolk

** What makes me want to vomit though is all the posts here that from the ex-wives mostly, that they call it THEIR money as opposed to the childs.**

This money is not the 'childrens' money, it is money paid by the nrp to the pwc to go towards the upbringing and upkeep of the children!!!!!