How far does your child maintenance go?

Soubrette

shell_542 wrote: »

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

I am not entirely sure what you mean - do you mean where there is already an NRPP in residence?

As I've explained I am assuming the situation if the shared care were up and running, perhaps I'm naive in assuming that most people do not run off with someone else

For those who have a co operative partner then yes I would imagine things would be easier for them on some levels, on another level, looking at the level of resentment from NRPP's regarding a financial input - I wonder on a practical level how many would be prepared to take a majority time investment for a child that wasn't even their's?

Sou

chriszzz

bdt1 wrote: »

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 ours was they all had earache or had a last minute party to go to, had that lots of times on his contact dates and we would never know until we turned up for them, were never told in advanceor were away visiting relatives. They also went to there aunties on his contact daysThis 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

In all the time ive been with my OH his children have never been allowed to fone him on fathers/birthday, never been given money to buy him a card, never allowed to bring change of clothes or nightwear or underwear and the list goes on and on and yet she wants that money off him.

Thing is he is a great dad and those kids are missing out. He has lost on his girls and trying to keep his head up cos he still sees his son.

Dancing_Shoes

Soubrette wrote: »

I am not entirely sure what you mean - do you mean where there is already an NRPP in residence?

As I've explained I am assuming the situation if the shared care were up and running, perhaps I'm naive in assuming that most people do not run off with someone else

For those who have a co operative partner then yes I would imagine things would be easier for them on some levels, on another level, looking at the level of resentment from NRPP's regarding a financial input - I wonder on a practical level how many would be prepared to take a majority time investment for a child that wasn't even their's?

Sou

If it was the NRPP looking after the children (the children of the nrp and pwc) then its really shared care between the pwc and nrpp therefore the nrp isn't really doing their 50% iyswim. I also think that alot of pwc's would object to the nrpp raising their children as in some cases we are seen as the enemy:rolleyes:

To share a funny story I once tried to encourage the eldest child to eat some vegetables (to be healthy) and was accused of undermining her parenting by not giving just chips??. She was of course completely right in that I thought I would feed them vegetables so that I could steal them off her:rotfl:

Dancing_Shoes

chriszzz wrote: »

In all the time ive been with my OH his children have never been allowed to fone him on fathers/birthday, never been given money to buy him a card, never allowed to bring change of clothes or nightwear or underwear and the list goes on and on and yet she wants that money off him.

Thing is he is a great dad and those kids are missing out. He has lost on his girls and trying to keep his head up cos he still sees his son.

Hopefully one day they will see the truth (it often comes out in the end) and in the meantime send birthday and xmas cards and presents by special/recorded delivery (having taken photocopies of them inside and outside) so that they can see for themselves that they were loved and not forgotten

shell_542

Soubrette wrote: »

I am not entirely sure what you mean - do you mean where there is already an NRPP in residence?

As I've explained I am assuming the situation if the shared care were up and running, perhaps I'm naive in assuming that most people do not run off with someone else

For those who have a co operative partner then yes I would imagine things would be easier for them on some levels, on another level, looking at the level of resentment from NRPP's regarding a financial input - I wonder on a practical level how many would be prepared to take a majority time investment for a child that wasn't even their's?

Sou

As most people do on this board, I'm thinking from my personal situation. My husband never ran off with me. My situation was very different to most people but I was married to my husband before the revelation of a child with the PWC came about.

I don't resent paying child maintenance. I don't like the workings of the CSA but that doesn't mean I'm all for avoiding paying. I would happily have my husband's daughter here more often. In fact that is what we are aiming for. I want my husband and my children to have a strong relationship with my step daughter. I know some NRPP's have issues and 50/50 wouldn't work for everyone. I have MAJOR issues with the PWC, but not my step daughter.

Soubrette

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

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

I think the problem for me is that for every problem an NRP has, there will be an equivalent problem that the PWC has eg PWC refuses access, NRP refuses to pay. NRP lies about income, PWC lies about being on benefits.

The trouble with the idea that we have our children's best interests is that we all think we do As I said in a previous post, some PWCs withhold contact because they genuinely feel their NRP is a horrible horrible person and it will be better for the children not to see them - perhaps the NRP isn't too nice or perhaps it is only the PWCs perception of this but whatever the reason the PWC will be sure they are following the best interests of the child even if, from the outside, it is obvious that is not the case. Likewise regarding child maintenance payments - no one thinks they don't pay because they are tight gits - they have reasons and excuses such as how none of the money gets to the children, they have to genuinely believe or believe they are selfish carp parents

I like the idea of automatic mediation for people divorcing with families so that all this is thrashed out and the expectations of both sides are clear and reasonable from the start. I also like the idea of parental care being temporarily or permanently suspended if one parent no longer acts like one from a third person perspective ie the courts.

I don't think the CSA is great but I have yet to see anyone come up with some really good better ideas on here - how can a fair proportion of income go from one family to another without incurring disproportionate costs for the tax payer? If you think of something then you should run for prime minister

No, I don't think you're a PWC hater - I think you're like me, ever so slightly biased towards your own side of the argument but able to at least agree that it is not as one sided as others would like to pretend.

Sou

shell_542

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

If it was the NRPP looking after the children (the children of the nrp and pwc) then its really shared care between the pwc and nrpp therefore the nrp isn't really doing their 50% iyswim. I also think that alot of pwc's would object to the nrpp raising their children as in some cases we are seen as the enemy:rolleyes:

To share a funny story I once tried to encourage the eldest child to eat some vegetables (to be healthy) and was accused of undermining her parenting by not giving just chips??. She was of course completely right in that I thought I would feed them vegetables so that I could steal them off her:rotfl:

I do think I live in cloud cuckoo land sometimes where all PWC's, NRP's, NRPP's etc can get on and think of the best interests of the children. :A

Soubrette

shell_542 wrote: »

As most people do on this board, I'm thinking from my personal situation. My husband never ran off with me. My situation was very different to most people but I was married to my husband before the revelation of a child with the PWC came about.

I don't resent paying child maintenance. I don't like the workings of the CSA but that doesn't mean I'm all for avoiding paying. I would happily have my husband's daughter here more often. In fact that is what we are aiming for. I want my husband and my children to have a strong relationship with my step daughter. I know some NRPP's have issues and 50/50 wouldn't work for everyone. I have MAJOR issues with the PWC, but not my step daughter.

But your situation is very rare surely?

No societal solutions could be based on your family situation as it would apply to so few people.

I'm talking about a much more conventional situation where someone meets someone else who already have children. NRPs often meet people who have no children of their own and then start second families - I feel (but would happily take on evidence to the contrary) this is much more common and much more practical to consider these situations in hypothetical 50/50 considerations rather than situations such as yours.

I aldo feel that you might have taken my posts as a personal attack and they certainly weren't meant as that. I had assumed your original post was about society in general rather than you in particular. If I were an NRP with 50% care then I would think it would be asking a lot of someone in their early 20s with a career to give up that to look after my child for most of the time they were with me.

In your situation then 50/50 might work out perfectly and I'm sure there will be other situations where it would - say the NRP meets a PWC. I feel however that that would not be the norm.

I also feel that I would like to be part of a society where 50/50 care was the norm though

Sou

shell_542

Soubrette wrote: »

But your situation is very rare surely?

No societal solutions could be based on your family situation as it would apply to so few people.

I'm talking about a much more conventional situation where someone meets someone else who already have children. NRPs often meet people who have no children of their own and then start second families - I feel (but would happily take on evidence to the contrary) this is much more common and much more practical to consider these situations in hypothetical 50/50 considerations rather than situations such as yours.

I aldo feel that you might have taken my posts as a personal attack and they certainly weren't meant as that. I had assumed your original post was about society in general rather than you in particular. If I were an NRP with 50% care then I would think it would be asking a lot of someone in their early 20s with a career to give up that to look after my child for most of the time they were with me.

In your situation then 50/50 might work out perfectly and I'm sure there will be other situations where it would - say the NRP meets a PWC. I feel however that that would not be the norm.

I also feel that I would like to be part of a society where 50/50 care was the norm though

Sou

I was talking about society in general until I made the comment about having a cooperative partner. LOL

I could be wrong but I don't think it's that unusual for NRP's to start relationships with PWC's. Reading around on public forums it seems the norm and usually NRP's meeting partner's with no children is not as common.

Viper_7

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

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

I also like how even when the NRP has good access, they get no benefits - yet the PWC gets the full 100% working Tax credit and child benefit.

The "discount" the NRP gets for having access is a pittance, and the NRP is usually the one going back and forth dropping off and collecting as the PWC cracks the whip and holds all the cards.

The NRP usually come out of the break up with a 25 - 75% split.
The vast majority of NRP's end up renting as they are kicked out the main house in order to provide the PWC with a roof over their head

The NRP still has to provide clothing/food/entertainment to a similar extent as the PWC.
Also if the PWC re-marries then the maintenance doesn't change as it's (for the child) So the newly married couple could be on joint incomes of 50K receiving a good £200 a month in maintenance, a good 1k in tax credits/child benefits and the NRP situation is still trying to survive and any changes in their circumstances like new relationsips/more kids makes naff all difference to the payments in the grand scheme of things.