Husbands ex-wife is living the life of luxury!

DUTR

moneysaver12 wrote: »

I think that it shouldn't matter whether the pwc has a lot of money or not a lot of money, end of the day the op husband helped to create the children so should pay for them.

I think you mean assist in the financial side of things :rolleyes:

crankydame

To a certain extent I empathise with you however as one of the previous posters said, you are contributing to the upbringing of two children who were there before you were - its their mother who is saving for their future - just because the sum of money is the same makes no difference - she can afford to save for them and if you were in her position you would do the same. I went through exactly the same scenario when my husbands children were younger. We were skint when we had our children but never missed a payment of maintenance towards his two first children and we can hold our heads high and know we did good by them - even tho we were still paying for his youngest for a whole year when she was supposedly at college only to find out she jacked it in after a month and her mother never said anything! - maintain your dignity, money isn't everything and just because his boys have fat bank accounts don't let that make you bitter towards them, it isn't their fault - kids won't hold it against you cos you can't take them out for expensive treats - spend time with them like cooking and reading - they will appreciate the attention much more than money - my step children are in their thirties now and my conscience is clear - we paid our fair share and our children are friends and there is no jealously between them. He chose you to spend the rest of his life with and if you are happy together thats all that matters. Although we were skint when the children were small it does get easier, it won't always be the way it is for you now - hold you head high and smile!

technoghost63

I totally sympathise with your predicament. The reality is that your husband is raising 4 children on one income. Three of the children are his, but two of them are given preferential financial treatment, over the other one, and both children within your own residence are disadvantaged, while the money paid to his other children is not even deemed necessary. I do believe in child support but it should be a fairer system. The CSA was set up to recover child maintenance from absconded fathers and to reduce the benefits burden mainly created by single mothers. It has failed to do both. It hasn't caught the abscondee fathers and it has created a generation of irresponsible "mothers" who breed and separate from partners in the knowledge that they will never be without. The ones who are suffering are the NRP's who are trying to support two families under extreme financial burden and highly intrusive circumstances, usually to the point where the second relationship eventually breaks under the pressure, resulting in more problems. The system has to change and become fairer. We have a generation of preteens and teens who know that if they want something, they just have to threaten to go and live with the parent who is willing 'to buy' what they want. The CSA can't cope with 'steady' family situations let alone situations where children (usualy teens) decide to jump from one parent to another. It is becoming a sick society where we develop manipulative children, parents who will attempt to bribe their offspring, an organisation that has no concern for PWC, NRP or children in any way, shape, or form, regardless of the 'spin', and MP's who couldn't give a monkey's about the suffering being endured by all, especially the civil rights that have been eroded over the past decade. Once we're all criminalised, then they will have removed our right to vote.

Zara33

technoghost63 wrote: »

The CSA was set up to recover child maintenance from absconded fathers and to reduce the benefits burden mainly created by single mothers. It has failed to do both. It hasn't caught the abscondee fathers and it has created a generation of irresponsible "mothers" who breed and separate from partners in the knowledge that they will never be without.

:rolleyes: So in you world there is no such thing as "irresponsible fathers" who sow heir seeds and walk away.

SandC

Hmm, well it is a choice to have children when your partner already has some. The boys' mother hasn't decided that she has to have another child or children with her new husband - if she did then their disposal income would be reduced as well.

space_rider

Why is it fair that someone should have other children and then not pay for the first children he had? The CSA reduce the payments for the earlier children because of that anyway. I can`t tell my eldest daughter that I can`t buy her any shoes because I chose to have her siblings.

poet123

technoghost63 wrote: »

I totally sympathise with your predicament. The reality is that your husband is raising 4 children on one income. Three of the children are his, but two of them are given preferential financial treatment, over the other one, and both children within your own residence are disadvantaged, while the money paid to his other children is not even deemed necessary. I do believe in child support but it should be a fairer system. The CSA was set up to recover child maintenance from absconded fathers and to reduce the benefits burden mainly created by single mothers. It has failed to do both. It hasn't caught the abscondee fathers and it has created a generation of irresponsible "mothers" who breed and separate from partners in the knowledge that they will never be without. The ones who are suffering are the NRP's who are trying to support two families under extreme financial burden and highly intrusive circumstances, usually to the point where the second relationship eventually breaks under the pressure, resulting in more problems. The system has to change and become fairer. We have a generation of preteens and teens who know that if they want something, they just have to threaten to go and live with the parent who is willing 'to buy' what they want. The CSA can't cope with 'steady' family situations let alone situations where children (usualy teens) decide to jump from one parent to another. It is becoming a sick society where we develop manipulative children, parents who will attempt to bribe their offspring, an organisation that has no concern for PWC, NRP or children in any way, shape, or form, regardless of the 'spin', and MP's who couldn't give a monkey's about the suffering being endured by all, especially the civil rights that have been eroded over the past decade. Once we're all criminalised, then they will have removed our right to vote.

The word here is choice. If you go onto have a second family then you have made that choice, and so cannot penalise the children for that choice.

Unless things have changed it takes two to breed

I am in the fortunate position of knowing little about the CSA but whatever system was in place the knub of the matter would still be the one above. If you have children support them, if you have children already consider if you can support any more before you have them. This caveat is applicable to both sexes.

LizzieS_2

technoghost63 wrote: »

I totally sympathise with your predicament. The reality is that your husband is raising 4 children on one income.
He is paying only part of the cost of raising his earlier 2 children. Rightly he is paying part of the cost of his new child. He obviously cannot afford the step-child, but then that is his choice and there is no point moaning when no effort is being made to chase the father equally responsible for that child.

Three of the children are his, but two of them are given preferential financial treatment, over the other one, and both children within your own residence are disadvantaged, while the money paid to his other children is not even deemed necessary.

CSA2 certainly gives greater allowances for the children living with the nrp, so preferential treatment is not to the previous 2 children. Whether the money paid to his other 2 children is necessary for immeditate costs is irrelevant - their gains are down to a well off nrrp living with them.

I do believe in child support but it should be a fairer system. The CSA was set up to recover child maintenance from absconded fathers and to reduce the benefits burden mainly created by single mothers. It has failed to do both. It hasn't caught the abscondee fathers and it has created a generation of irresponsible "mothers" who breed and separate from partners in the knowledge that they will never be without. The ones who are suffering are the NRP's who are trying to support two families under extreme financial burden and highly intrusive circumstances, usually to the point where the second relationship eventually breaks under the pressure, resulting in more problems. The system has to change and become fairer. We have a generation of preteens and teens who know that if they want something, they just have to threaten to go and live with the parent who is willing 'to buy' what they want. The CSA can't cope with 'steady' family situations let alone situations where children (usualy teens) decide to jump from one parent to another. It is becoming a sick society where we develop manipulative children, parents who will attempt to bribe their offspring, an organisation that has no concern for PWC, NRP or children in any way, shape, or form, regardless of the 'spin', and MP's who couldn't give a monkey's about the suffering being endured by all, especially the civil rights that have been eroded over the past decade. Once we're all criminalised, then they will have removed our right to vote

I wonder how many of these irresponsible mothers were once nrrp's who have chosen the benefit payouts of being single again against a relationship?

catenorfolk

space_rider wrote: »

Why is it fair that someone should have other children and then not pay for the first children he had? The CSA reduce the payments for the earlier children because of that anyway. I can`t tell my eldest daughter that I can`t buy her any shoes because I chose to have her siblings.

Exactly !!!!!!!:T