What to tell the kids

vitriol

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

The only problem with this plan is that if you send extra money through the CSA then it won't go to the PWC as extra money, it will be allocated as an early payment of her regular maintenance. The CSA can only process the money that an NRP should be paying per week.

i hope im right in disagreeing with this as i know of a parent who has sent a substantial amount of money for his sons birthday, the PWC hasnt yet complained, iv been told she would.

fannyanna

FBaby wrote: »

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.

What you quoted was my retort to what if they were still together as a couple. I agree that any partner - be it NRP or PWC partner should not be expected to contribute to the children. But by the very nature of being in a relationship it happens!

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....

Yes but it's all based on what can be afforded. From what I gather most NRP's aren't exactly rich once they've paid their child maintenance contributions, mortgage/rent, bills etc. I just find the argument "child maintenance is only £x, that's not enough, the NRP MUST provide more" to be absurd. It's only £x because that's only what the NRP has been assessed as being able to afford. Unless of course NRP's are also being provided with money growing trees when they receive their assessment!

. 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.

But that is what they are paying child maintenance for. My response to the "in addition to maintenance" argument is as above.



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.

Or how the PWC forgets that in paying maintenance (whatever the amount) the NRP is paying towards the child plus towards the PWC's housing / bills etc as well as having to provide a roof over their own head and pay their own bills. Once again most NRP's do not have a limit less stream of money and where they are paying maintenance they are paying what has been assessed as a fair amount.

I'm naff at multi quoting so I've just responded above in red

FBaby

Marisco wrote: »

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

SO why oh why are so many pwcp coming here complaining that their tax credits are taken into account? Surely it is the same thing isn't it, they should take on their partner's children too???

This is the double standard I just can't comprehend. pwcp are expected to take over where npr fails, but it is all hell loose if there is mention that the nrpp should support her partner financially to help with his kids....

FBaby

fannyanna wrote: »

I'm naff at multi quoting so I've just responded above in red

the bottom line is that if an nrp is not capable of contributing half (and no more) towards what his children cost, then he needs to reevaluate his working/living arrangements. No nrp should expect a pwc to be contributing more than half and vice-versa. If an nrp contributes more than 50%, then indeed, it is the for pwc to somehow find the way to make up the difference.

Where there are problems is when the pwc considers the needs of the children way above that of the nrp and you then have to decide what is reasonable.

fannyanna

FBaby wrote: »

SO why oh why are so many pwcp coming here complaining that their tax credits are taken into account? Surely it is the same thing isn't it, they should take on their partner's children too???

This is the double standard I just can't comprehend. pwcp are expected to take over where npr fails, but it is all hell loose if there is mention that the nrpp should support her partner financially to help with his kids....

I agree with you on a general level

As I said in my post before I don't think partners should be EXPECTED to contribute but they inevitably end up doing so.

Let's be stereotypical for a minute and presume the PWCP is a man and the NRPP is a woman........... I wonder if a difference comes in where the female partner has a child and that childs tax credits are used towards another child (then there's the equally unfair flip side that an NRP gets a reduced liability for having a step-child). I can understand why people get p'd off. Like wise where the woman wants a child with the NRP and gets met with "no, he can't have more children if he can't pay for the one(s) he's got".

PreludeForTimeFeelers

vitriol wrote: »

i hope im right in disagreeing with this as i know of a parent who has sent a substantial amount of money for his sons birthday, the PWC hasnt yet complained, iv been told she would.

CS2 allocates the money for future payments, so the system will probably just show that the NRP has paid up for the next month or so. Were there any arrears on the case? If so, then a lump sum payment would clear those and they would have went straight to the PWC.

If there were no arrears, then they money may sit on the account and show as payable, and only release to the PWC when the payment schedule says so.

fannyanna

FBaby wrote: »

the bottom line is that if an nrp is not capable of contributing half (and no more) towards what his children cost, then he needs to reevaluate his working/living arrangements. No nrp should expect a pwc to be contributing more than half and vice-versa. If an nrp contributes more than 50%, then indeed, it is the for pwc to somehow find the way to make up the difference.

Where there are problems is when the pwc considers the needs of the children way above that of the nrp and you then have to decide what is reasonable.

I think we'll have to just agree to disagree.

I'm of the point of view that as long as an NRP is paying what the CSA has assessed them to pay the PWC can bog off. Ultimately they are an ex and have absolutely no grounds to try and tell the NRP what to do with their life or how to arrange their finances.

FBaby

Yes but it's all based on what can be afforded. From what I gather most NRP's aren't exactly rich once they've paid their child maintenance contributions, mortgage/rent, bills etc. I just find the argument "child maintenance is only £x, that's not enough, the NRP MUST provide more" to be absurd. It's only £x because that's only what the NRP has been assessed as being able to afford. Unless of course NRP's are also being provided with money growing trees when they receive their assessment!

See I don't agree with that. It is not to me a case of 'my kids get whatever I can afford to give', but 'my kids need this and I therefore need to change my life to afford to pay for this and then the rest'. Maybe it is me, but my kids will always come first, not because they live with me but because I love them, am responsible for them and want the best for them. If I have to do with less so they have what I consider to be what they deserve, then I would do it. I would never consider falling pregnant with another child if I thought my kids would have to do with a lot less as a result. I wouldn't take on a partner who doesn't work and isn't supporting himself if it means that I have to support him and my children get less as a result. I don't spoil my kids and I strongly believe in teaching them the values of life, but I would always aspire to live somewhere that would mean they have access to a good school, insure that they can eat a balance diet, make sure they are transported in a reliable car, that they can do a minimum of activities that mean they don't lose out everytime on what their friends do etc... I just can't comprehend parents, nrps or pwcs who consider that they only have to pay a certain amount towards their children and if they have to do with less as a result, that's tough.

fannyanna

FBaby wrote: »

[/COLOR]

See I don't agree with that. It is not to me a case of 'my kids get whatever I can afford to give', but 'my kids need this and I therefore need to change my life to afford to pay for this and then the rest'. Maybe it is me, but my kids will always come first, not because they live with me but because I love them, am responsible for them and want the best for them. If I have to do with less so they have what I consider to be what they deserve, then I would do it. I would never consider falling pregnant with another child if I thought my kids would have to do with a lot less as a result. I wouldn't take on a partner who doesn't work and isn't supporting himself if it means that I have to support him and my children get less as a result. I don't spoil my kids and I strongly believe in teaching them the values of life, but I would always aspire to live somewhere that would mean they have access to a good school, insure that they can eat a balance diet, make sure they are transported in a reliable car, that they can do a minimum of activities that mean they don't lose out everytime on what their friends do etc... I just can't comprehend parents, nrps or pwcs who consider that they only have to pay a certain amount towards their children and if they have to do with less as a result, that's tough.

I do appreciate what you're saying. And you know what when I have my own child I'm pretty darn sure that like you I will always want what is best for my child and will work hard to ensure that, that happens.

I guess the difficulty comes in the fact that most NRP's are men and whilst I know that this is another generalisation I would say in the majority of cases the parental bond/urge is stronger for a woman than a man. I think men and women just think differently.

Also you are paying direct for your child. You KNOW what they need and how much money is NEEDED to provide for that. A compliant NRP is the majority of cases has already provided a substantial sum of money. They then get moaned at by the PWC about not providing enough. Well they have to take the PWC's word for that and in a lot of cases relations aren't great. There's a lack of trust. Perhaps if like the PWC they were having to provide things directly it might be a bit different.

13Kent

FBaby wrote: »

the bottom line is that if an nrp is not capable of contributing half (and no more) towards what his children cost, then he needs to reevaluate his working/living arrangements. No nrp should expect a pwc to be contributing more than half and vice-versa. If an nrp contributes more than 50%, then indeed, it is the for pwc to somehow find the way to make up the difference.

Where there are problems is when the pwc considers the needs of the children way above that of the nrp and you then have to decide what is reasonable.

It's allv ery well to say that a NRP hasd to re-evaluate his working/living arrangements to contribute more but it's not always as easy as that.

Those NRP's that do see their children and have them to stay need to pay the rent/mortgage on a bigger house then they would otherwise need, as they need to provide their children with a room or rooms to sleep in when they do stay (a one bedroom flat may be cheaper but not practical). Also they need to run a reliable car that can fit all the family in especially if the onus is on them to pick up the children and deliver them back to the PWC as happens in many cases.

Don't forget that in some cases the it was not the NRP's choice to leave the family home - that decision is often the PWC's who still has a home. The NRP often leaves with nothing, no family and no where to live and has to start from scratch. After paying a mortgage for a number of years and then suddenly losing that home trying to get on the mortgage ladder again, or finding enough money after csa payments to be able to rent a house suitable to house your children when they do come to stay is not easy. Then if the NRP does meet a new partner who already has a house, that he can take his children to then that is a bonus, and the NRPP is then contributing albeit indirectly to the welfare and financial aspects of bringing up those children.

In the PWC's case often they get to keep the house that the NRP has paid the mortgage on for a number of years, and then they move a new partner in - so even if that partner does contribute to the upkeep of the PWC's children then he has moved into a family home which already has a mortgage on it and possibly equity also, so he is benefitting from that - surely he shouldn't be expected to live 'rent free' so if he does contribute to the household bills that include the upkeep of the pWC's children surely that's only fair.

(I use 'he' and 'she' for ease of writing, and because it is more usual that the NRP is a he and the PWC is a she, but am aware that it can be the other way round).