What to tell the kids

kelloggs36

Schools usually can pay any difference if any parent is struggling - in my DD's case, we had an agreement (me and my ex) to pay half each for a trip to Germany. Surprise surprise, he didn't cough up and I couldn't afford to pay for it all, so we told the school and said that she could no longer go. The school were brilliant and paid up the other half so she could go - I was so grateful and my DD didn't miss out, but she would otherwise have had to.

fannyanna

FBaby wrote: »

If an nrp only pays £5 a week because thats how it is, he should never have to try to help to contribute towards a pair of shoes?

But if the NRP has been assessed by the CSA and is compliant with their assessment they are paying what has been deemed an acceptable amount - whatever that amount is.

Why should the NRP have to contribute more?

When my husband lost his job and was in receipt of JSA for about 8 weeks prior to finding another job his maintenance assessment was changed to £5 per week. One of the PWC's was fine but the other went mental and moaned at him for not providing. What on earth was he expected to do? I can't remember what JSA was at the time but I remember it was no where near enough to pay our mortgage and our bills etc. We could barely afford to keep a roof over our head so why on earth would there be the expectation that we could afford over and what the CSA had assessed his child maintenance as.

Now I understand that the costs the PWC incurred to look after the child didn't disappear during this 8 week period but seriously what did she expect? An NRP simply can not provide what they do not have in the first place!

clearingout

fannyanna wrote: »

But if the NRP has been assessed by the CSA and is compliant with their assessment they are paying what has been deemed an acceptable amount - whatever that amount is.

Why should the NRP have to contribute more?

When my husband lost his job and was in receipt of JSA for about 8 weeks prior to finding another job his maintenance assessment was changed to £5 per week. One of the PWC's was fine but the other went mental and moaned at him for not providing. What on earth was he expected to do? I can't remember what JSA was at the time but I remember it was no where near enough to pay our mortgage and our bills etc. We could barely afford to keep a roof over our head so why on earth would there be the expectation that we could afford over and what the CSA had assessed his child maintenance as.

Now I understand that the costs the PWC incurred to look after the child didn't disappear during this 8 week period but seriously what did she expect? An NRP simply can not provide what they do not have in the first place!

I appreciate an NRP can't give what they don't have. But what on earth happens in families with two parents where mum is a stay at home mum and dad loses his job? do those children suddenly go without the basics? A single parent is financially no worse off than a couple in that situation, are they? Do the children go without as a result? Does a child not get new shoes because dad is out of work?

I think what fbaby is trying to get at is two parents on low incomes together or separately are likely to struggle to provide for their children and in such a situation, it isn't unreasonable that the PWC request additional support from the NRP over and above the £5 they receive. How they go about requesting that additional support, however, is quite clearly key. And putting a sobbing child on the phone isn't reasonable - I think we all agree on that.

fannyanna

clearingout wrote: »

I appreciate an NRP can't give what they don't have. But what on earth happens in families with two parents where mum is a stay at home mum and dad loses his job? do those children suddenly go without the basics? A single parent is financially no worse off than a couple in that situation, are they? Do the children go without as a result? Does a child not get new shoes because dad is out of work?

They'd probably be entitled to a lot more benefits than just JSA so they would have more income.

The other alternative would be that Mum could also try and get a job and not just Dad.

clearingout wrote: »

I think what fbaby is trying to get at is two parents on low incomes together or separately are likely to struggle to provide for their children and in such a situation, it isn't unreasonable that the PWC request additional support from the NRP over and above the £5 they receive. How they go about requesting that additional support, however, is quite clearly key. And putting a sobbing child on the phone isn't reasonable - I think we all agree on that.

In my opinion a PWC should not expect the NRP to provide anymore than what the CSA stipulates they must provide. Whether that's £5 per week or £100 per week.

It should be down to the NRP to provide what they want.

But I'm sure we can agree to disagree on that point .

You're right that I think most people disagree with the way the request is made. Unfortunately I think it's just another unfortunate case of how children are sometimes used by the PWC to assert some form of control over the NRP.

fannyanna

Just to add (so that I don't come across as a PWC hater ) that of course you come across cases where the NRP splashes the cash and always gets the kids what they want knowing full well that the PWC isn't in the position to do the same.

Kids then think that NRP is wonderful as they buy all the great stuff that PWC can't afford.

Actually you could then argue the NRP is in the wrong whatever they do. Don't provide and they don't care, do provide and they're just trying to buy the kids love.

13Kent

fannyanna wrote: »

Just to add (so that I don't come across as a PWC hater ) that of course you come across cases where the NRP splashes the cash and always gets the kids what they want knowing full well that the PWC isn't in the position to do the same.

We made a conscious decision for the sake of the children (and the PWC) not to spoil the children when they were with us - whether it be by giving them treats and presents every time they came, or allowing them to get away with things such as staying up late.

However unfortunately the PWC did not share our philosophy, and often rang the children on a Sunday morning or even a Saturday evening to say "I've been shopping and guess what I've bought you...." Of course then the children's only thought was how quickly they could get back to Mum to get their presents, not how they could enjoy their day with Dad, which put a dampener on the remainder of our precious one weekend a fortnight. So it's not just NRP that can put the children in that position.

However we used to come to terms with it in the end by thinking how sad it was that the PWC was so insecure that she felt that she needed to bribe her own children in order to make them want to come back to her house.

Marisco

clearingout wrote: »

Do the children go without as a result?

Yes, I'm afraid they do. If the parents are out of work and cannot afford it, then this is what happens. Whether the parents are together or not. The CSA have made an assessment on the op based on his income, (we assume he's compliant and not trying to dodge anything), so obviously that is what they have deemed he can afford to pay. He should not be made to feel guilty if he cannot afford the "extras". Reading some of the stories on here with PWC's with deadbeats and dodgers, she should be thankful she's getting anything at all, some poor PWC's get nowt!!

FBaby

fannyanna wrote: »

They'd probably be entitled to a lot more benefits than just JSA so they would have more income

Indeed, whereas when parents are separated and in new relationship, they can find themselves with no benefits at all because of their new partner's income, yet it is not for them to support the children because their own parents can't. You don't want your salary and tax credits to be taken into account when determining maintenance, surely you agree that it is not for the pwcp to contribute the difference.

In my opinion a PWC should not expect the NRP to provide anymore than what the CSA stipulates they must provide. Whether that's £5 per week or £100 per week.

I am really bemused by this statement. Surely any good parent desire is to provide the best for their children. If their situation is that csa only assess them at £5, they would try to help as much as possible outside of this. No child survives on £10 a week....

It should be down to the NRP to provide what they want

. Indeed, and what they should want is to contribute towards clothes, shoes and trip should it be within maintenance payment because they are high enough to cover for half of it, or in addition as much as possible if maintenance payments don't allow for it.

Unfortunately I think it's just another unfortunate case of how children are sometimes used by the PWC to assert some form of control over the NRP.

Or how the nrp hides behind asssessed maintencance to forget that in some occasions, their children cost a lot more than half what they pay.

FBaby

Marisco wrote: »

Yes, I'm afraid they do. If the parents are out of work and cannot afford it, then this is what happens. Whether the parents are together or not. The CSA have made an assessment on the op based on his income, (we assume he's compliant and not trying to dodge anything), so obviously that is what they have deemed he can afford to pay. He should not be made to feel guilty if he cannot afford the "extras". Reading some of the stories on here with PWC's with deadbeats and dodgers, she should be thankful she's getting anything at all, some poor PWC's get nowt!!

Ok, so take my situation. My ex doesn't pay anything, but if he did, he would probably be assessed at not much more than £10 a week. The kids cost a lot more than £5 each a week obviously. I am not entitled to any tax credits because of my partner's salary. At the moment, I support my children totally on my own (with my partners paying more of the bills to make it more equal between us, so in essence, is already indirectly contributing towards them).

Let's assume I lost my job tomorrow, I still wouldn't be entitled to anything because of my partner's salary. based on my new income, I shouldn't have to contribute more than £5 a week, should I tell my kids that they can starve because I DON'T have to pay more than £5 a week, that's what the government tells me? Of course not, I would do everything to get another job that pays enough to support them and in the meantime, I would ask my partner to help me.

It's amazing how nrps can hide behind what they are only legally rather than morally required to pay just because the pwc can pick up the rest, or if she can't the tax payers or her new partner will.

Just to point out before it comes back pointlessly, my comments only apply to nrps who pay a small amount of maintenance. If the OP pays a reasonable share of what the children cost, then of course all this doesn't apply and should explain why he shouldn't be contributing more towards his children.

Marisco

But that does not take into account whether he can afford to contribute any more or not. If, after the CSA payments, and his living costs, he has nothing left, how is he supposed to contribute more? If he can afford it, then by all means do so. But he should not be made to feel guilty, if he cannot. There are many NRP's who literally cannot do more, are these then supposed to starve themselves? As for a PWC with another partner, then that partner knows when he gets with someone with children, that that is what happens. They come as a "package", and if he is not prepared to take that on, then he should go. A NRPP is expected to give up some of her CTC, so it's only the same thing really.

Now I must be honest here!!:) I find this "his" and "her" money strange. I've always worked on a "big pot in the middle" system. My daughter's husband has never ever begrudged paying for her 2 kids from her ex, he took them on and treated them like his own, her ex is a "deadbeat" jobbie, so oh has always taken on the financial responsibility for them. My daughter works full time, but it's always been a joint effort with them. They have another daughter together and she has never been treated any different from the other 2