How far does your child maintenance go?

shell_542

Soubrette wrote: »

I think it is a great idea - one of the big opportunity costs for a PWC is the time spent with the children, being the one that has to come home if they are ill, often being the one that works part time with the low wages and poor prospects associated with this. It would also give the NRP a wake up call when out on a date as many people aren't interested in parents as potential partners, yes they can put up with the kids visiting a few weekends a month but not more full on.

If all time and money could somehow be evened out between the two families then each parent would still be a parent ie a child would have two homes rather than a home and the one they visited every other weekend.

The only problem I can see is that you would have to have much more severe guidelines on what would be expected from a parent for example if you had a workaholic parent, it would be wrong for a 7 year old child to have to let themselves in from school and be alone until their parent arrives home at 8, or be expected to be alone all day when ill at that young an age because the parent has already used up their holidays and work frowns on unpaid leave.

Of course there are other practicalities when they are small such as breastfeeding etc but if there is a will then there would be a way.

In theory brilliant idea - in practice I don't believe people have the will to make it work plus it takes both parents to do it but only one for the whole thing to come crashing down. I'd like to see a move towards this though from society in general.

Sou

I agree Sou.

Just a couple of things. First regarding the highlighted bit ... not all NRP's are single LOL

And I'm assuming you don't think this way, but I wasn't merely suggesting the 50/50 residence as a punishment of some sorts for NRP's who don't have their children live with them much of the time but also for those NRP's who would love to have their children spend more time with them but some PWC's make it difficult/impossible.

I do feel for (mostly male) NRP's who are expected to go from being a "full time parent" to a "part time parent" when a relationship splits up. I would like to see more parents having 50/50 residence of their children so no one loses out. (I appreciate for all sorts of reasons it's not always possible. Breastfeeding was one reason. Work committments etc.)

On the breastfeeding comment, I have been shocked to read people on other sites encouraging mothers to lie to courts/CAFCASS etc saying they are breastfeeding just to stop their ex's seeing their children more often. It's very sad, the lengths some will go to.

shell_542

chriszzz wrote: »

:)


I agree with Dancing Shoes!! Dont let the pwc care get to you, this is what some of them want.
Our pwc is the most manipulative, evil, selfish mother that I have ever come across and there have been times when I have thought Its just to hard, but take her out of the equation and me and my OH get on great, so now we try not raise to the bait and if she wants to mess her kids head up, let it be on her own selfish cruel head
Dont do it Binty!!! ((HUGS AND KISSES)) we know what it can be like, so cmon chin up missus

Me too. Don't you dare. You're stronger than that.

Dancing_Shoes

Obviously safety reasons aside it would be great if pwc's who withheld contact for no reason other than to get more maintenance or punish their nrp's were punished by no maintenance:T. I don't always think money and contact are seperate as the current system means that the less contact the pwc allows for the nrp to have the more money they get:rolleyes:
Its all well and good to say fight them in court but what happens when they repeatedly disobey and find ways around ensuring contact doesn't happen, the pot of money for court will only stretch so far for most people

Soubrette

shell_542 wrote: »

I agree Sou.

Just a couple of things. First regarding the highlighted bit ... not all NRP's are single LOL

And I'm assuming you don't think this way, but I wasn't merely suggesting the 50/50 residence as a punishment of some sorts for NRP's who don't have their children live with them much of the time but also for those NRP's who would love to have their children spend more time with them but some PWC's make it difficult/impossible.

I do feel for (mostly male) NRP's who are expected to go from being a "full time parent" to a "part time parent" when a relationship splits up. I would like to see more parents having 50/50 residence of their children so no one loses out. (I appreciate for all sorts of reasons it's not always possible. Breastfeeding was one reason. Work committments etc.)

On the breastfeeding comment, I have been shocked to read people on other sites encouraging mothers to lie to courts/CAFCASS etc saying they are breastfeeding just to stop their ex's seeing their children more often. It's very sad, the lengths some will go to.

Not a punishment - I love working part time and being a big part of my (much older) girls lives. However, that commitment that I put in has an indisputable opportunity cost - it is harder to meet someone when you already have children (I'm assuming most people split up and are single at least for a while) and it is much more unlikely that you are going to be one of life's high fliers on the career front. A lot of talk on this forum is about how hard done by the NRP is moneywise, I think many of these people who are talking about being 'milked' by the PWC would have a real shock if everything was shared 50/50 (forget work commitments, you'd have to accept that family comes first or like a PWC organise childcare )

I think that although some men are full on parents, in most conventional familes the man still works full time (and sometimes more) and the woman works part time or not at all to look after the children. Most men are therefore not full time parents in the actual sense of the word even when both parents are together, this is not the case with all partnerships of course and it is a shame that this leads to prejudice in the family courts later on.

My argument is that undoubtedly most PWCs benefit from the money put in by the NRP even if it is just that it frees up money to be spent on things for them - but NRPs also benefit from the hidden non montary costs of having children, some, I think would actually find their new lives of devoting 50% of their time to their children very rewarding, a significant minority (probably similar to the ones who gripe about the money they pay for child maintenance) would find that their loss of income, job prospects and potential partners would be too much of a price to pay.

An eye opener yes, possibly even a punishment to some, but I wouldn't change my choices for the world

As to lying, yes it disappoints me but it no longer shocks me, if people played by the spirit of the law then we wouldn't need access courts or the CSA.

Sou

Soubrette

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

Obviously safety reasons aside it would be great if pwc's who withheld contact for no reason other than to get more maintenance or punish their nrp's were punished by no maintenance:T. I don't always think money and contact are seperate as the current system means that the less contact the pwc allows for the nrp to have the more money they get:rolleyes:
Its all well and good to say fight them in court but what happens when they repeatedly disobey and find ways around ensuring contact doesn't happen, the pot of money for court will only stretch so far for most people

I am deadly serious when I say that I would make damn sure that my PWC knew that life would be a hell of a lot more difficult if they withheld contact.

I would go back to court as much time as it took and if they ignored a court order once I would ask for a punitive element up to and including a potential prison sentence if it was ignored again. I would beg, borrow or mortgage to get the money and I would be using any cheaper resources I could such as this forum or families need fathers.

I would also involve social services making it clear that I felt it was damaging to the children to not have access to one of their parents and that I felt emotional abuse was going on. I would further make it clear that I was going to apply for full care myself. All this I would do after warning the PWC it was going to happen.

If all this failed then I would be sure to make a monthly payment into an account for the benefit of my child and I would ensure that when the day came when they knocked on my door that they knew that I missed them ever single day and they were always on my mind.

I admit that I am as scornful of the PWC who withholds contact - this is disgraceful, as I am of the NRP who complains about lack of contact but has actually done nothing. There are a couple of posters here whom I feel have a generalised hatred of PWCs due to their own experiences, which I feel is a shame, but I cannot help but admire their continual efforts to remain as part of their children's lives.

Sou

chriszzz

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

Obviously safety reasons aside it would be great if pwc's who withheld contact for no reason other than to get more maintenance or punish their nrp's were punished by no maintenance:T. I don't always think money and contact are seperate as the current system means that the less contact the pwc allows for the nrp to have the more money they get:rolleyes:
Its all well and good to say fight them in court but what happens when they repeatedly disobey and find ways around ensuring contact doesn't happen, the pot of money for court will only stretch so far for most people

This happens alot, I know of at least 2 NRP who have given up on the children because the pwc has made it too hard.

We have had the same problem with my OH ex, she is a disgrace as a mother, she will never ask my Oh she always uses blackmail or threats, she will manipulate and twist things to suit herself, she has already been behind getting the girls to send hate mail to there dad and dont want to see him anymore, honestly no other reason than he had the audacity to challenge her over really nasty txts that she sent him, the girls were 11 at the time, his son still comes every other weekend but she is trying to put obstacles in her sons way, and yes she wants the money every month, thats all she wants.

Sorry I went on one there, feel better for it phew!!!

Soubrette

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

Obviously safety reasons aside it would be great if pwc's who withheld contact for no reason other than to get more maintenance or punish their nrp's were punished by no maintenance:T. I don't always think money and contact are seperate as the current system means that the less contact the pwc allows for the nrp to have the more money they get:rolleyes:
Its all well and good to say fight them in court but what happens when they repeatedly disobey and find ways around ensuring contact doesn't happen, the pot of money for court will only stretch so far for most people

Also wanted to add (but forgot ) are you happy to also see contact denied for those who refuse to pay?

All those who claim they would pay if they could but it's just too much? What about those who are ill or unemployed - should they get less contact?

Those who are irregular payers? Sometimes you see them, sometimes you don't?

I don't like the idea of children being pay per view from either side of the equation but I am interested on how you would solve the problems

Sou

bdt1

We had similar, I'm NRPP, soon as I met hubs (NRP) - I might add, him and PWC split up long before I was on scene, she stopped access. She demanded more and more money in cash form (she was on benefits), and would only let him sit in her home to see kids, with her supervising.

When I gave birth to our 1st child this changed things, I started receiving nasty letters from her, she stalked our home, she demanded more money again, until we said no. Then she went to the CSA.

We went down legal route for access, but it was convenient that on day of access, the kids had poorly tummies or had a last minute party to go to, or were away visiting relatives. This went on for years until my hubs gave up, with many tears shed in the meantime. We hope one day, they will not believe the PWC version of the tale, but listen to 2 sides, and hopefully find Daddy and their half-siblings. It's just so sad , how can a child not have enough people to love them

shell_542

Soubrette wrote: »

Not a punishment - I love working part time and being a big part of my (much older) girls lives. However, that commitment that I put in has an indisputable opportunity cost - it is harder to meet someone when you already have children (I'm assuming most people split up and are single at least for a while) and it is much more unlikely that you are going to be one of life's high fliers on the career front. A lot of talk on this forum is about how hard done by the NRP is moneywise, I think many of these people who are talking about being 'milked' by the PWC would have a real shock if everything was shared 50/50 (forget work commitments, you'd have to accept that family comes first or like a PWC organise childcare )

I think that although some men are full on parents, in most conventional familes the man still works full time (and sometimes more) and the woman works part time or not at all to look after the children. Most men are therefore not full time parents in the actual sense of the word even when both parents are together, this is not the case with all partnerships of course and it is a shame that this leads to prejudice in the family courts later on.

My argument is that undoubtedly most PWCs benefit from the money put in by the NRP even if it is just that it frees up money to be spent on things for them - but NRPs also benefit from the hidden non montary costs of having children, some, I think would actually find their new lives of devoting 50% of their time to their children very rewarding, a significant minority (probably similar to the ones who gripe about the money they pay for child maintenance) would find that their loss of income, job prospects and potential partners would be too much of a price to pay.

An eye opener yes, possibly even a punishment to some, but I wouldn't change my choices for the world

As to lying, yes it disappoints me but it no longer shocks me, if people played by the spirit of the law then we wouldn't need access courts or the CSA.

Sou

I think it would be a lot easier for an NRP to handle 50/50 if they have a cooperative partner who is at home with their "children of marriage" anyway

Dancing_Shoes

Soubrette wrote: »

Also wanted to add (but forgot ) are you happy to also see contact denied for those who refuse to pay?

All those who claim they would pay if they could but it's just too much? What about those who are ill or unemployed - should they get less contact?

Those who are irregular payers? Sometimes you see them, sometimes you don't?

I don't like the idea of children being pay per view from either side of the equation but I am interested on how you would solve the problems

Sou

I am not one of the pwc haters you talk about Sou, in fact I have every sympathy for alot of the pwc's on here.
The system at present does mean that to a certain extent those nrp's who don't see or see very little of their children are punished by paying a higher rate of maintenance (on csa2 anyway not up to date on csa1:o).
I think everyone should be made to pay towards their child's upbringing, if they leave their job then they should not be able to claim benefits and their benefit money should go to the pwc:T
I also don't like the idea of "pay per view" but if you don't want to provide for your children financially then how can you say that you have their best interests at heart?
Ill or unemployed through no fault of their own is another matter and one that I can't get my head around a solution to. Tbh I wouldn't like to make the rules as there are always going to be exceptions to the rule but just see certain things that are wrong.
I think like Chriszzz said sometimes when the children are old enough to have their own views and the poisening has been done there is very little you can do to force children to have contact with their parents:(.
I am sure alot of you can read between the lines but I do have to exercise caution with how much info I put on here as my husbands children are old enough to be using the internet and I think it would be inconsiderate of me to post their life story on a forum