Is anyone else in this situation?

Soubrette

LizzieS wrote: »

I take you've guessed these figures as they are totally wrong.

Since when has child benefit been £100pw for 3 children?

I've just checked it and for 3 children from 5th Jan 2009 it would be £46.40.

Sou

Soubrette

If I go on HMRC working tax credits on an income of £600 per month only and assuming children aged 16,13 and 10, and assuming I am a single parent then I get an estimated working tax credit of £10680.18 (this is actually just over £200 per week). Plus child benefit giving £13092.98 plus net salary given a total of £19865.83 or £1655.48 per month net.

So Jamespir is only about 20% out if the above assumptioms are true - of course the other side of any story is the outgoings for the three children.

Sou

LizzieS_2

Soubrette wrote: »

I've just checked it and for 3 children from 5th Jan 2009 it would be £46.40.

Sou

Thanks Sou, I knew the amounts, just wanted to make sure James knew how silly exagerating figures looks.

overthehills

CHRISTIE wrote: »

He was sleeping with this girl on a regular basis and she was meant to be on the pill. When she found out she was pregnant he told her that they should not have the baby/they were not in love/could not support a child....... She went ahead and had the baby. They had no contact at all during the pregnancy and he has never seen the child. He says that he does not want anything to do with them at all. ?

Slate me for this but once again the man had the decision taken from him but is expected to pay for a child he didn't want because he felt, and quite rightly at the time, neither could support it. That in itself was a very sensible thing to consider. What was not sensible is to go on and have a child when the mother knowingly knew the father didn't want a child.
However, a child needs to be supported and the "mother" should probably give this guy a break considering.

kelloggs36

The guy couldn't have not done the deed then? There is ALWAYS a chance that sex could result in a pregnancy - that is a risk we all take when we do it even if protection is taken. We must all therefore take responsibility for the outcome - that means both parties.

angelicmary85

Hi guys,

Sorry for butting in here but I just wanted to ask if the child is definitely the b/f's kid? If she was just a !!!! buddy to this woman's b/f then could she not have been s!!!!!!g someone else aswel and this guy is just 'taking the blame' so to speak?!!

Mojisola

angelicmary85 wrote: »

Sorry for butting in here but I just wanted to ask if the child is definitely the b/f's kid? If she was just a !!!! buddy to this woman's b/f then could she not have been s!!!!!!g someone else aswel and this guy is just 'taking the blame' so to speak?!!

Asking for a dna test before any money is paid over would be a sensible thing to do.

parkysaves

Just adding to the PWC costs, I pay £190 for my daughter to attend nursery for 2 days from 9-2.30 pm. Luckily I could change my hours to school hours to avoid the £8 per day for after school care for our two boys. Oh and school holiday care is £15 a day.
So obviously there is the childcare costs to take into account which would virtually count out any tax credits from the equasion.

Oh.... but I notice James appears to have left the forum so must be happy with the correct figures quoted.

I have total sympathy for either man or woman as each situation should be judged on its own merit, like anything, but what I fail to understand is why on nearly every occasion the absent father (or mother!!) feels that they are being Punished by having to pay for their child/children?? This almost gives the impression that once they leave the home they want to leave everything with it, including children. And yet, wo betide any mother who cuts access or moves out of the area etc. Why????

SuziQ

Marksoton whilst I sympathise with you having read your previous posts I do take exception to so many people who state that the mothers recieving maintenance are spending it on luxuries for themselves.My first husband was with me for 15 years and knew that I don't smoke,drink,have never been interested in fashion or makeup greatly-the only money I ever spent on myself was a haircut once every 6 weeks so I could see through my fringe! Yet when we split he used exactly the excuse that I would 'spend it on myself' even though I earned more than him during the marriage and every penny went on mortgage,childcare,bills food etc. It was just an excuse and he never paid a penny until he started giving our 18 year old money weekly in term time for Uni last year.
When a pwc recieves maintenance it goes 'in the pot' with any other income and gets spent on what needs spending. If the pwc getes their hair cut out of that why would the nrp believe it was THEIR contribution paying for it? This mentality bemuses me-I even had to 'explain' this issue to my second husband regarding the maintenance he paid his ex! (Lord give me strength!!)

I think it falls more on the man to take precautions as he is most likely to be the one ending up with longterm maintenance award against him of a child results from his activities,and whilst I talk to both my oldest kids about respecting their bodies and keeping them healthy by avoiding sexually transmitted disease, my son has also been told on a regular basis that he can't come crying to me about having to pay for an unwanted child unless he took every precaution etc.I have also told my daughter (who grits her teeth as she only wants a career not kids!) that she should always assume she will get no monetary support in this situation as she has lacked respnsibulity too-if the bloke steps up to the mark,all well and good but people can quite easily 'dissapear'!

Chrissie you have had lots of good advice on here and tbh you just sound far too good for this bloke. He is either very immature or just an irresponsible plonker and I would think very carefully about your future.
Good luck to you whatever you decide.