How much should I "pay" my ex to have HIS kids

Lady_S

elona wrote:

He should not be making a profit out of them either!

The two issues are separate though.

Unfortunately people in this thread don't seem to be able to make the distinction between that.

ben500

BrokeBrunette wrote:

I think some people are missing the point about the money side of it.

The OP has stated that her ex NEVER has the kids and yes he gives her a sum of money each month to pay the mortgage etc, but he is legally bound to give her 20% of his net income (CSA - 2children) Both he and his solicitor admit the sum he is giving is a fair equation to this %. He is not paying any extra than he has to by law.

As stated many times on this thread, this amount does NOT just cover food and her ex will not be buying clothes or paying for anything for the children for the week, other than food and the slight additional cost of a weeks electricity - should they turn the tv on, showers etc. They are at school most of the week she is away. How therefore can he justify the sum of money he is asking for. He is making a profit from looking after his own children, which cannot be right. According to the OP he wants £500 for the week, yet is still asking her to give the kids their dinner money. I am so disgusted, I can't understand how anyone can defend something like this.

There are lots of dads who look after their children regularly i.e overnight on a regular basis and therefore the sum they give to the mother is lowered accordingly (as it should be). That is not the case here!

#
Not unless the children spend a minimum of four nights in residence with the father, otherwise NO allowance is made.

BrokeBrunette

ben500 wrote:

[/B]
#
Not unless the children spend a minimum of four nights in residence with the father, otherwise NO allowance is made.

but surely the same applies if the parent in residence is the father, and the mother is the absent parent?

ben500

BrokeBrunette wrote:

but surely the same applies if the parent in residence is the father, and the mother is the absent parent?

Yes that's right but the topic under discussion and certainly under fire is the absent father, I would focus all of my comments on the absent mother if the reverse applied, absent parent being the preferred term.

ben500

Just out of interest a question for the op, is the £100 that you have offered over and above a refund of the agreed weekly rate of support required?

BrokeBrunette

ben500 wrote:

Yes that's right but the topic under discussion and certainly under fire is the absent father, I would focus all of my comments on the absent mother if the reverse applied, absent parent being the preferred term.

you're right, we are discussing an absent father in this thread, and I can only speak for myself but if the roles were reversed and it was an absent mother asking for £500 I would feel exactly the same. I don't think it's directed at the absent parent because he is a man. It's the fact he is being unreasonable that's the issue, and that person could equally be female.

ben500

Just for the record I haven't stated that I agree with his demands just that the tirade on here that as a father he should be honoured that he is given the privelege of playing the role for one week and not concerned with financial matters but that the mother should beggars belief.

If the "agreed" weekly cost of the children is £175.38pw then why should he be expected to pay that and only receive a rebate of £100 and still have that "agreed" expenditure as the children will be resident with him for that week. his net loss would be £250.76! for the privelege? If the financial detail matters to the resident parent why on earth shouldn't it matter to the nrp?

All too often you see this line adopted.

BrokeBrunette

ben500 wrote:

Just for the record I haven't stated that I agree with his demands just that the tirade on here that as a father he should be honoured that he is given the privelege of playing the role for one week and not concerned with financial matters but that the mother should beggars belief.

If the "agreed" weekly cost of the children is £175.38pw then why should he be expected to pay that and only receive a rebate of £100 and still have that "agreed" expenditure as the children will be resident with him for that week. his net loss would be £250.76! for the privelege? If the financial detail matters to the resident parent why on earth shouldn't it matter to the nrp?

All too often you see this line adopted.

Ben, I agree that financial matters should matter for both parents, but do you honestly think it's fair for the absent parent to ask for and receive such a large amount of money for one week, when they quite obviously will not have the same expenditure as the resident parent in this case? He will end up well in pocket out of that sum and that surely can't be right?. It's a crazy amount of money to ask for and then to ask for dinner money on top :eek:

Your sum of a net loss is fine in theory but as was discussed earlier in this thread, the OP still has to pay her household expenditure out of that money, regardless of whether the children are there for 7 nights or not.

The main thing is that they can reach an amicable compromise, which seems highly unlikely in this case. There's a lot of difference between £100 and £500!

Why is it so difficult to type a reply - I've come to the conclusion I am much better at discussions in person lol.

ben500

BrokeBrunette wrote:

Ben, I agree that financial matters should matter for both parents, but do you honestly think it's fair for the absent parent to ask for and receive such a large amount of money for one week, when they quite obviously will not have the same expenditure as the resident parent in this case? He will end up well in pocket out of that sum and that surely can't be right?. It's a crazy amount of money to ask for and then to ask for dinner money on top :eek:

Your sum of a net loss is fine in theory but as was discussed earlier in this thread, the OP still has to pay her household expenditure out of that money, regardless of whether the children are there for 7 nights or not.

The main thing is that they can reach an amicable compromise, which seems highly unlikely in this case. There's a lot of difference between £100 and £500!

Why is it so difficult to type a reply - I've come to the conclusion I am much better at discussions in person lol.

In brief No. But no account is ever given to the fact that the absent parent still has to maintain a "home" that he or she can invite the child/children to for visiting rights irrespective of his or hers needs of accomodation! Why does the absent parent always have to be the loser? why is all the moral guilt ALWAYS placed on the absent parent? Why is it always assumed the absent parent WANTS to be an absent parent, hey give me the kids anyday! Fortunately for me I am no longer the absent parent but the resident parent, my ex-partner refused to acknowledge my childs residence at my home for FIVE months consequently receiving payments from me for those five months whilst I was raising my child, The csa insisted that as long as she kept telling them the child was with her then if I ceased payment they would PROSECUTE me unless I made a counter claim, I didn't wish to claim and refused to do so for that five months, in the end I succumbed as I was fed up with her smug attitude and my own feeling of helplesness in my pursuit to stop my own payments. I had incidentally been making payments for the last 12yrs and quite happpily despite my children being resident with me for 3 days and nights per week.

liney

If he thinks it costs £500 quid to take care of them for the week then his maintenace should be £250 (half) x 52 /12 = £1083 per month, not £750 if you want to be prescise about what the figures 'should' be.