To claim or not to claim...?

chriszzz

Hi
I couldnt read and run, what comes to mind is responsibility!!! He doesnt pay maintenance and he wants you to pay for their activities while your children are with him??

Now this is just my opinion but I would tell him to sling his hook and stop taking the pi55. My first thoughts would be stability for my children and if he is not paying now, can you really afford to carry on helping him to shirk his responsibilities.

I do sympathise with your situation and I think its nice that you want to save any heartache for your children but I think in the long run your not doing any favours to yourself and your children, what your doing is saving his arsss, which he does not deserve.

You dont have to disrespect him to your children but Id stop bailing him out.

I just couldnt have someone use threats like he has and think he can get away with it. Take your stand and tell him that you are going to the csa and that HE will have to tell the children that HE doesnt want to see them anymore and HE has to tell them why!!

Like i said that is only my opinion, you will obviously find your own way of dealing with this situation.

Good Luck!

plimsoll

chriszzz wrote: »

Hi
I just couldnt have someone use threats like he has and think he can get away with it. Take your stand and tell him that you are going to the csa and that HE will have to tell the children that HE doesnt want to see them anymore and HE has to tell them why!!

or he could just not see them again and then it would be her explaining to them...

tough call re: maintenance OP, but I would really stop paying for kids to do stuff with him and def don't pay for presents from him!

LizzieS_2

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

So money is more important than the ex continuing to see his child? I agree he is taking the biscuit but he already doesn't see another so if she goes to the csa she really knows already that her child will no longer have contact with their father.....how can you explain that to the child when they are older? Would you be happy if you lost your father because your mum wanted to get some money?

The child is the most important person in all of this not the op or her ex

If the father chooses not to see the child because he has to put his hand in his pocket to pay toward upkeep of his own flesh & blood, then he really isn't fit to have father as a title. This man takes the pee well & truely and is the type of person who created the backlash of the csa powers.

kelloggs36

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

So money is more important than the ex continuing to see his child? I agree he is taking the biscuit but he already doesn't see another so if she goes to the csa she really knows already that her child will no longer have contact with their father.....how can you explain that to the child when they are older? Would you be happy if you lost your father because your mum wanted to get some money?

The child is the most important person in all of this not the op or her ex

I don't agree - he is bullying his ex into submission - let me do what I want to do, let me not pay because I'm a selfish git or I won't see the kids. Personally I would say 'go on then'. I would never stand in his way to see them, but if he makes a choice then that says more about him than me! Of course the children are important, but so is responsibility and ensuring that somebody faces it. It's not morally right to leave all the finances to one parent alone which is what he wants to do. He is being a bully and shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.

caroline83

Thanks everyone, it's been interesting to read all your replies.

For the sake of my kids i so far have never persued csa. Apart from this issue i get on reasonably well with my ex and his new partner & i don't want to 'rock the boat' if you like.

Although money is tight, we can survive on the money we have since we have been doing so far. Just can't help feeling like saying to my ex 'well because i am taking driving lessons, buying myself the latest nike trainers, going on holiday etc i'm afraid i have no money left to spend on the children.sorry' which is basicly what he is saying. But of course, he knows i would never do this!

I wouldn't mind him not giving me any money if he could just once in a blue moon buy them a treat or something they need for school or at least not just tell me he has no money for food so i don't have to give money for this if he ever has them for the day. I find it very hard to believe he and his gf don't eat!

I don't know how much he earns-he is a chef-his gfriend works too and they live together but don't declare it so don't know if that means he gets a little extra too eg. single persons council tax.

well i am going to say no to the xmas pressie & politely ask him not to promise the kids expensive xmas pressies that he then expects me to buy.
as for csa, i'm going to approach him first about helping me out a bit more.....although i think i already know the answer...and give it some more thought:rolleyes:

DUTR

Excellent reply Caroline83, the right thing to do is approach the csa however in your case it is correct to leave it as a last resort , it is all too easy for folk to suggest running in with all guns blazing, but some rational is the best approach in your situation, you never know he may come to like contributing .

lyndata

I think you'd be better off without him. He's using the kids as an excuse and not paying is just as low as it gets. Call his bluff, If he doesnt have a job his life will be pretty crap...no more driving lessons...nice meals with the girlfriend etc etc..if he has no job. If you went through the csa he'd still have to give you a fiver off his money!
I know you say he has a good relationship with the kids but they should see him for what he is...in the nicest possible way. I dont see why he should live the life if Reilly when you can just afford the bare essentials.

sp1987

lyndata wrote: »

I think you'd be better off without him. He's using the kids as an excuse and not paying is just as low as it gets. Call his bluff, If he doesnt have a job his life will be pretty crap...no more driving lessons...nice meals with the girlfriend etc etc..if he has no job. If you went through the csa he'd still have to give you a fiver off his money!
I know you say he has a good relationship with the kids but they should see him for what he is...in the nicest possible way. I dont see why he should live the life if Reilly when you can just afford the bare essentials.

I agree entirely. I would personally put it in writing that I wished for him to devise a payment plan in accordance with CSA guideline amounts which was affordable for him on a weekly/monthly basis with a date for a written response. At least then no arguments can appear later of ''oh I did not say that''. If that is not considered/goes ignored then the CSA should be applied to.

Who wants a father who only wanted to go to the cinema with them when he was paid to? If he genuinely wanted to spend that quality time, as many men do, and are stopped from doing.....he would walk them to the park or somewhere entirely free if funds were prohibitive. It sounds like he puts his own comforts over that of his children. I am not saying he should live like a pauper but he should contribute what he can afford. Even if he can only give £5/week max, his children will know this £5 was paid every week for them and they could be all the more proud for it. What sort of father lets the childrens mother pay for everything, does he have no male pride?

If he quits his job to avoid paying then his children will find out later in life. If he refuses to see his own children because their mother requests a little money to spend on their day to day expenses then what sort of a role model does that make him? He would be the only one to lose out if he refused to see his children long term. In years to come they would remember that bloke who could not be bothered to support offspring he helped to create! They may be young now but they will not always be and a lesson in the truth without any harsh words from the OP (actions speak louder, and all that) will not damage them in the same way that finding out one day that their fathers relationship with them was 'bought' would do.

It does not look at all like the OP wishes to line her pockets, merely have a little contribution to mirror that which she puts in for their upkeep. Why should her partner have to pay for the ex to take his own children out for the day? If I was the partner I would have taken them myself rather than let him carry on about how he will 'spoil' them at any cost to the PWC.

Soubrette

Blonde_Bint wrote: »

I and soubrette you'll appreciate this its FREE FREE FREE. .

I just saw this and it made me laugh :rotfl:

Do I have a reputation for stinginess here :rotfl::rotfl:

Because it's true, I bought 7.5kg potatoes for 27p the day before yesterday and I've been chuffed to bits ever since :cool: (as well as peeling and blanching like crazy )

Sou

chriszzz

Soubrette wrote: »

I just saw this and it made me laugh :rotfl:

Do I have a reputation for stinginess here :rotfl::rotfl:

Because it's true, I bought 7.5kg potatoes for 27p the day before yesterday and I've been chuffed to bits ever since :cool: (as well as peeling and blanching like crazy )

Sou

Sou,
Hope you have posted your bargain in the bargain and deals thread

be nice now and share your good fortune.

I want them potatoes :rotfl: