Confused

LizzieS_2

AnxiousMum, I've come to the conclusion (from replies to numerous posts):
A) If pwc works, it is her own fault she has to pay for petrol, childcare etc
If a pwc doesn't work, she is just idle and living off nrp

Whichever you do, it will be wrong

AnxiousMum

LizzieS wrote: »

AnxiousMum, I've come to the conclusion (from replies to numerous posts):
A) If pwc works, it is her own fault she has to pay for petrol, childcare etc
If a pwc doesn't work, she is just idle and living off nrp

Whichever you do, it will be wrong

Yes, apparently any parent with custody is a money grubbing so and so......hmmmm if I was a money grubbing so and so, I'd have cleaned out the bank accounts, ran up the credit etc. before I left him

LizzieS_2

That makes 2 of us who didn't take anything. Shame some illusions will be shattered.

Mine went with no debt, cash to buy an identical house with a lower mortgage, no childcare costs as it was inconvenient to have them on at least 5 (often 7) days a week. Yes, you've guessed it, he was the one moaning he was hard done by!

Of course years have passed and he is now ok - just pleased he isn't as bad as some on here.

shell_542

Please feel free to find any post where I call all PWCs money grabbers. I only normally post on here with regards to the CSA demanding more than an NRP can afford. My circumstances are very different to your run of the mill NRP story so I try not to go down the whole "generalisation" of a group of people ... as has just been done on the basis of one of my posts.

I fail to see where in the OPs or my posts I said it was acceptable for an NRP to complain they could not afford to pay their child support and then go on a 50 mile journey to visit friends ... hmm. I clearly stated that some NRPs costs do come before child support because they incur them to be able to pay child support ... like petrol to get to work. Again, where did I say PWCs aren't allowed to do that?

Difference being a PWC can choose how much to spend on their child. If their budget doesn't allow for a certain amount, they can adjust it ... the NRP doesn't have that choice. They're just suppose to magic extra money up from thin air.

Yes if you've known from the beginning you have to pay X amount in child support then don't get out of your depth ... some, us included, suddenly had this amount thrown on us or the amount increased when they already had all their outgoings (including a private agreement child support amount perhaps) in place and not everyone has loads of luxuries and wastes money, some are living month to month as it is (current amount of child support included, not CSAs amount)

My post was only referring to the comment about NRPs putting themselves before their children, which apparently (judging by a couple of posts on here, I am going to generalise now) because they had bad experiences with their own NRP, all must be scum. Just like a lot of NRPs on here who have had difficulties with their PWCs, they get on the defensive and assume all must be doing the same.



I really can't be bothered to get into a NRP vs PWC argument.

speedster

AnxiousMum wrote: »

As a PWC, I have gone without many things to ensure that my children's needs are met. I'm sure many a PWC has done the very same thing, but many an NPC seems to think that their personal needs get met as priority, and then the needs of the children. The day you have a child, that priority has to change! The OP HAS stated that they refused to pay the higher amount.

ever tried going without 40% of your wage? doubt it.

sorry, but without all the facts it is totally wrong to judge.

in the OP's case,do we know the arrears are correct? their own situation? etc, etc, etc.

DUTR

shell_542 wrote: »

Please feel free to find any post where I call all PWCs money grabbers. I only normally post on here with regards to the CSA demanding more than an NRP can afford. My circumstances are very different to your run of the mill NRP story so I try not to go down the whole "generalisation" of a group of people ... as has just been done on the basis of one of my posts.

I fail to see where in the OPs or my posts I said it was acceptable for an NRP to complain they could not afford to pay their child support and then go on a 50 mile journey to visit friends ... hmm. I clearly stated that some NRPs costs do come before child support because they incur them to be able to pay child support ... like petrol to get to work. Again, where did I say PWCs aren't allowed to do that?

Difference being a PWC can choose how much to spend on their child. If their budget doesn't allow for a certain amount, they can adjust it ... the NRP doesn't have that choice. They're just suppose to magic extra money up from thin air.

Yes if you've known from the beginning you have to pay X amount in child support then don't get out of your depth ... some, us included, suddenly had this amount thrown on us or the amount increased when they already had all their outgoings (including a private agreement child support amount perhaps) in place and not everyone has loads of luxuries and wastes money, some are living month to month as it is (current amount of child support included, not CSAs amount)

My post was only referring to the comment about NRPs putting themselves before their children, which apparently (judging by a couple of posts on here, I am going to generalise now) because they had bad experiences with their own NRP, all must be scum. Just like a lot of NRPs on here who have had difficulties with their PWCs, they get on the defensive and assume all must be doing the same.



I really can't be bothered to get into a NRP vs PWC argument.

Some good points made Shell_542, in many many posts behind the lines all I see in many of these episodes is a fight or having a choice.
A PWC has to love and support their offspring and put them 1st whether they like it or not, the NRP can choose, and thankfully systems like the csa make it all the more easier for pwc's to end up with egg on their faces. If many of the sob stories from nrps or nrpps realised pay sooner rather than later and avoid the arrears in the 1st place, the system cannot be used further as a spite tool. What I see from this OP is that the figures were incorrect so they are paying NOTHING, could be the way they wrote it. Whether NRP or PWC some people shgould learn where to draw the line, stop the fighting and get on with life, it doesn't matter who ended the relationship or why, the end circumstance is the same. :cool:

Donedoingdebt

LizzieS wrote: »

That makes 2 of us who didn't take anything. Shame some illusions will be shattered.

Mine went with no debt, cash to buy an identical house with a lower mortgage, no childcare costs as it was inconvenient to have them on at least 5 (often 7) days a week. Yes, you've guessed it, he was the one moaning he was hard done by!

Of course years have passed and he is now ok - just pleased he isn't as bad as some on here.

It does work both ways though, Lizzie. I'm an NRP & when we separated, I took on all the huge amount of debt that was in both names, carried on paying the mortgage for a further 6 months, kept our car on the road for her, which basically left me with no spare cash to get myself anywhere to live with all the relevant costs etc. Everything at that point was paid by loan or credit card, obviously increasing the debt even further.

The CSA at that time, just didn't want to know because I didn't have any proof that anything was paid specifically for child maintenance. Hence, an arrears bill on top of CM.

This is not a rant at PWCs, just showing the other side.

We separated in March 1999 & happily, just this month, I've finally cleared all the debt to become debt free rather than a wannabee. But, it did take over 10 years!

kelloggs36

Donedoingdebt wrote: »

It does work both ways though, Lizzie. I'm an NRP & when we separated, I took on all the huge amount of debt that was in both names, carried on paying the mortgage for a further 6 months, kept our car on the road for her, which basically left me with no spare cash to get myself anywhere to live with all the relevant costs etc. Everything at that point was paid by loan or credit card, obviously increasing the debt even further.

The CSA at that time, just didn't want to know because I didn't have any proof that anything was paid specifically for child maintenance. Hence, an arrears bill on top of CM.

This is not a rant at PWCs, just showing the other side.

We separated in March 1999 & happily, just this month, I've finally cleared all the debt to become debt free rather than a wannabee. But, it did take over 10 years!

my story is the opposite - NRP walked away leaving me (PWC) with mortgage arrears and 2 joint loans to pay - which left me with negative income before I paid any other bills or food etc. He was able to set up again with new partner, have 2 more children whilst refusing to support the one we had together. It has taken me many years also, to get back on my feet so I do not feel any guilt whatsoever in pursuing him for maintenance. He feels bitter that he has been forced to do this and never considers that it didn't need to be that way - I had asked him for what turned out to be HALF of what the CSA assessed him at - but he refused to pay a single penny. As a PWC I have struggled over the past 19 years and no longer need to - but no thanks to him!

In your case, there were certainly reasons to be upset - the CSA should have taken your debts into account (but the rules are very strict and limited in the circumstances in which this would be possible). Your PWC was EXTREMELY lucky and it is absolutely not fair that you should have taken the full hit - you should have done what my ex did, and refused to pay for anything - but if you paid the CSA you would have been doing the legally correct thing.

Donedoingdebt

kelloggs36 wrote: »

In your case, there were certainly reasons to be upset - the CSA should have taken your debts into account (but the rules are very strict and limited in the circumstances in which this would be possible). Your PWC was EXTREMELY lucky and it is absolutely not fair that you should have taken the full hit - you should have done what my ex did, and refused to pay for anything - but if you paid the CSA you would have been doing the legally correct thing.

Glad to see you're up on your feet again.

The problem with looking back on maybe what I should have done, is that I now have the benefit of hindsight. At the time, with no experience of all things CSA, I just reacted to what was in front of me & felt it was right at the time to minimise any impact on my 2 children (9 & 7 at the time).

kelloggs36

Fully understandable - it's because you CARE about your kids! Shame many don't.