he keeps threatening csa

Soubrette

catenorfolk wrote: »

I quite agree with most things that you have mentioned on the above, but i really dont think that he should necessarily have to contribute towards your holidays and mobile phones and your daughter driving lessons as much as these are great, they are not necessities. He should be helping to upkeep the necessary things for the kids.ie, food clothes gas electric etc and all essential items. As for you going on holiday with the kids, that is surely for you to sort out. If he feels that holidays are necessary for the kids he can take them himself. I think it is nice for the kids to go but we didnt have a holiday for years because of an ex who was totally a pain, but i never did expect him to pay towards the holidays. I did manage to save the sun coupons and things and have a few days a year away and also sent my kids away for a week on those all kids, which you can get cheaper if you are on benefits.

No they are not necessities but he earns an awful lot of money - if we were together then he would put in to those things.

As you can see, I didn't count those essential items such as electricity etc because I couldn't think of a fair way to apportion them, I keep my paperwork so if anyone has any good ideas then I'd be interested

I don't expect him to subsidise my holidays but I certainly would expect him to help out with the girls holidays with spending money etc, the issue is somewhat muddied as obviously it is nice to build a relationship with our family out there. The same with the phones - they are the childrens' phones not mine and he approved of them having them at much earlier age than I did. He also benefits from them having them too although that's by the by.

As his children they are supposed to benefit from his income - not the bit of it that he deems should go towards essential items. If he were genuinely unemployed through no fault of his own and I were the wealthy parent then their lifestyle would be very different again but I would be grateful for any contribution he could afford.

There is a big difference between the minimum it takes to bring up a child and what that child is entitled to because of the income of both that child's parents.

Sou

marksoton

Soubrette wrote: »

No they are not necessities but he earns an awful lot of money - if we were together then he would put in to those things.
Sou

To be honest Sou i cannot understand this mentality.

You are not together and to suggest that it's the same seems somewhat wishful thinking.

catenorfolk

I appreciate that it take a lot of monies to bring up kids, I have two myself and get a very limited amount from him, he is self employed and can hide loads of things. at the moment an LO is being raised for arrears etc, He will only pay £20 per week for two teenagers, so yes I do know exactly what you mean. But even so the courts dont feel holidays abroad are essential nor some of the other stuff. Just the bills, clothing etc. I have my family abroad and would love my kids to have visits, but as you say it would be nice for the kids to have spending money from their father but not essential. As long as he contributed to the basics, then that would be fair, unfortunately a lot of nrp wont, which leaves a lot to be desired. by the way i hope you dont feel that i am accusing you of anything, and if my above post felt like that i am sorry. I am in the same situation as you are so have every sympathy, and would love my ex to have a good moral stance, unfortunately as a a lot are they are pains in the butt!!! lol

Soubrette

marksoton wrote: »

To be honest Sou i cannot understand this mentality.

You are not together and to suggest that it's the same seems somewhat wishful thinking.

But they are still his children, no?

What if I said, you know what now we are not together, the children live with me - well they aren't yours, they are mine.

Wouldn't that be awful?

With rights (the children are ours) come responsibilities (we are both expected to pay a proportion of our income towards their upkeep - not a minimum amount - a percentage).

I don't understand why I am expected as the PWC to be the primary carer with all the pros and cons and the primary person to finance them?

They are our children and are supposed to benefit from the income of both of us.

If I were wealthy then they'd have a good lifestyle - what kind of parent would be swanning of on holidays abroad but leaving their kids to enjoy a week at Butlins? Would be shopping at Oxford Street but dressing their kids in Matalan clothes? Would be eating top notch food but feeding their kids value beans? Having my hair professionally cut but getting out the scissors at home for their hair? To be honest if one of my friends were doing that with children that lived with them I would have a very poor view of them as a parent.

But if you don't live full time with your children then it is apparently all well and good?

I don't understand it either, marksoton

Sou

Soubrette

catenorfolk wrote: »

I appreciate that it take a lot of monies to bring up kids, I have two myself and get a very limited amount from him, he is self employed and can hide loads of things. at the moment an LO is being raised for arrears etc, He will only pay £20 per week for two teenagers, so yes I do know exactly what you mean. But even so the courts dont feel holidays abroad are essential nor some of the other stuff. Just the bills, clothing etc. I have my family abroad and would love my kids to have visits, but as you say it would be nice for the kids to have spending money from their father but not essential. As long as he contributed to the basics, then that would be fair, unfortunately a lot of nrp wont, which leaves a lot to be desired. by the way i hope you dont feel that i am accusing you of anything, and if my above post felt like that i am sorry. I am in the same situation as you are so have every sympathy, and would love my ex to have a good moral stance, unfortunately as a a lot are they are pains in the butt!!! lol

No, I didn't take it as a personal attack but I do refute strongly the idea that the NRP is supposed to be contributing only to the basics of the upbringing of a child. If that was the case then how come Beatrice McCartney gets a whack load of money from her Dad

If that were the case then why does the CSA work out what is due on percentage of salary? Why not just work out what minimum is required to bring up a child and charge that instead?

I still strongly believe that a child is supposed to benefit from the income from both parents.

I freely admit that the PWC will benefit - if not directly, then indirectly as the NRP will be paying for things that the PWC no longer has to. But there are pros and cons of being both the PWC and the NRP. In the main a PWC has very little in the way of breaks and privacy, they are the ones the try and smooth the emotional lives of their childrens and sort out the problems, of course they get the huge benefit of having their children living with them. They benefit from the financial input from the NRP even if the majority is spent directly on the children. The NRP should be paying a proportion of salary and almost certainly does not see the children as much as they would like. They also have benefits though - they get to go out when they want, they get to start relationships much easier than a PWC, they don't have to deal with the sharp end of difficult situations with the children as much as the PWC. They get to be a parent and be like a single person when they want to.

Sou

marksoton

Soubrette wrote: »

I still strongly believe that a child is supposed to benefit from the income from both parents.

But how often do they ? Bearing in mind the PWC distributes the NRP contribution if the CSA are involved.

catenorfolk

I agree that the NRP should contribute to more, but what i am trying to say is that the courts generally look that the basic needs to be covered and extras are not essential, even tho we feel this is not right in this day and age. Essentials have changed from years ago and we all need more. but unfotunately the government are not firm enough in making sure this aspect is covered.

Soubrette

marksoton wrote: »

But how often do they ? Bearing in mind the PWC distributes the NRP contribution if the CSA are involved.

I can't answer your question directly - neither I suspect can you

I do however believe that most PWC give their children a similar lifestyle to the one that they lead, if they have a higher income due to child maintenance then I believe that the almost always the children benefit from being in a higher income household. I have not heard of one PWC who follows the lifestyle that I described above (holidaying abroad, child holidays at Butlins etc), I do unfortunately know several NRPs that follow that pattern.

If a NRP believes that no money is spent on the child then they should report the PWC to social services and go for custody themselves. I do not believe anyone is in that situation either - despite the sometimes wishful thinking of NRPPs posts stating this is the case :rolleyes:

I also believe that most NRP want to see their children benefit and pay the prescribed amount decided by the government.

Being an NRP has pros and cons as does being a PWC. Getting to decide how your household income is spent is one of the pros of being a PWC and as I say, most of us want what is best for our children.

Sou

Soubrette

catenorfolk wrote: »

I agree that the NRP should contribute to more, but what i am trying to say is that the courts generally look that the basic needs to be covered and extras are not essential, even tho we feel this is not right in this day and age. Essentials have changed from years ago and we all need more. but unfotunately the government are not firm enough in making sure this aspect is covered.

Ah I see, I've never been through the court system, only the CSA and they certainly agree that it is percentage of income that counts and not basic needs of the child.

Otherwise why would someone on benefits only be required to pay £5 a week - a sum that certainly does not cover half of what is needed for a child's upkeep

Sou

catenorfolk

the reason someone on benefits only paying £5 (rightly or wrongly) is because every one on benefits has a protected income - despite the fact that their kids are not getting any extras and that the pwc is struggling!