Fall out with lifelong friend about maintenance payments

FBaby

Marisco wrote: »

Whilst I understand the points you are making, Romanempire does have a point. If they were still together and the oh lost his job, then their living standards would be drastically reduced. Why should this be any different, just because they are separated? The op's oh has lost his job, even the CSA recognises that an NRP cannot pay the same on "the dole", and reduces maintenance accordingly. Why should the op's oh be any different?

If the parents were together and there was a significant drop in the household income, they would most likely be able to claim tax credits to increase the family income. Or, the other party would take on more hours to make up the difference.

In the case of separate couples, if the nrp loses his job, hence revenue of pwc is reduced, the pwc and pwpp can't apply for tax credits to make up the difference because maintenance wasn't taken into consideration in the first place. Is it fair that the pwc should be expected to up her hours to make the difference up when this wouldn't be expected of the nrp in the opposite situation ie. the pwc loses her job? I just don't think separated families can be compared to non separated couples.

Marisco wrote: »

I suppose the difference is with PWCP's is that they live in the house, so they'd have to pay bills regardless of the kids anyway.

The fact that they share the same household don't make them more of a parent. My kids respect my partner and they get along very well, but their dad is THEIR dad and always will be. They don't consider my partner more important than my ex's partner because they see him 5 days a week and their dad's partner only 2 days. I don't see why my partner should be expected to support them if I couldn't any longer, but it would never be expected of their step-mum. And I don't agree that they would have to pay the same bills regardless of the kids. We had to extend the house that my OH owned to accommodate for my children. Because there was a few more years only on the mortgage, he was understandbly keen to stick to the same arrangement after the extension. This means that we repay over £1,000 more a month than he paid before. I contribute, but he certainly has to contribute a lot more than he used to. Same with electricity and water, the bill has increased by over 50% with us moving and that's mainly because of the kids. He is not complaining at all, that was his choice, I just want to highlight how much a pwcp's life can be affected by taking on step-children.

Marisco wrote: »

And an NRPP's CTC is taken into account for maintenance purposes, which isn't right either. The whole system is a mess anyway!!

Agree with you, but then it isn't right that maintenance is deducted for children who are not related to the children in question. My ex's would be able to claim 25% discount on the basis that three children live in his household although 2 are not his children (actually they don't even spend most of their time there but at their dad but somehow my ex's partner does claim CB for them and therefore tax credits). Again, it's unfairness against him as a pwcp who pays less for his own children because he is expected to contribute towards children who are not is! It certainly is a mess, but that is both ways.

Marisco wrote: »

But I must be honest here, I wouldn't work all hours god sends just to pay maintenance for kids that weren't mine, especially if we were struggling.

Neither do I believe it is right that my partner's life should be severely affected and find himself struggling financially if he suddenly had to support all of us if I lost my job, but he would be given no choice if he wanted to stay with me

In the end, pwcps are treated diffently than nrpps on the basis that the children live with them, yet if I were to say that my partner should have more input in my children's life, choice of education, discipline ect... on the basis that they live with him, many would be outrage and state that this should only be down to the child's parents regardless of who they live with.

I am not advocating for nrpps should contribute towards their step-children, I am advocating that pwcps should be treated with the same consideration than nrpps!

FBaby

chriszzz wrote: »

A NRPP or PWCP should not have to pay for NRP financial responsibilities. That should be seperate from the two families...

I agree a 100%, but unfortunately, this not how the law sees it. If a pwc loses her job or becomes ill , it is not a case of asking the nrp to make up for her contribution towards their children. Instead, the pwcp's income will be taken into account in determining benefits. If he earns a decent salary, they will be entitled to no financial support and he will be expected to support the children. He could find himself having no choice but to financially contribute more towards children who are not his than their own father would be expected to...

Marisco

You make some good points FBaby, but nonetheless, in this situation I would have a word with the PWC, and say that the maintenance was being reduced until he got another job. Even the CSA would reduce it! So even they (who are not the most efficient institution going, to say the least!!!) realise that an NRP with no job, can not possibly pay the same as before.

I understand what you say re PWCP's, but I don't know what the answer to that is. I do think it's different if the kids actually live in a house though, there is a measure of say in what the money is spent on, whereas a NRP has no say at all as to what happens to the money he shells out every month. You only have to see a couple of threads on here to see how this causes problems.

My sister has it sussed, she took no money off her ex, but he was happy to pay for everything else i.e clothes, trips, after school stuff etc. I don't know why more don't do that, the child/ren get the benefit, and NRP's cannot complain that the money is going on the PWC's debts, social life, clothes etc.

chriszzz

FBaby wrote: »

I agree a 100%, but unfortunately, this not how the law sees it. If a pwc loses her job or becomes ill , it is not a case of asking the nrp to make up for her contribution towards their children. Instead, the pwcp's income will be taken into account in determining benefits. If he earns a decent salary, they will be entitled to no financial support and he will be expected to support the children. He could find himself having no choice but to financially contribute more towards children who are not his than their own father would be expected to...

FBaby I dont there is ever gonna be a one size fits all and we could all go round in circles.

The senario above could be said for the NRP who has moved in with their new partner who also has a child from their ex and the NRP could find themselves in the same situation whereas his g/friends ex has become ill and can no longer work to financially contribute, then the NRP would not also be contributing to his children from his ex but also to his new g/friends children.

I think in situations like this and the PWC has a partner, then the children will be fine, it will be the pwc who are single and dont have anyone else to support them that will suffer the most.

In this situation, personally, my main concern would be the health of my childrens father, money wouldnt come into it for me but everyone is different and I dont expect anyone to share my view on this because it is my view, I value my childs feelings on their father and in them circumstances it would be important to me that my child was never to hear me mention money in relation to his fathers ill health!

Its always going to be tough trying to find a happy medium but sometimes we just have to do the best out of a bad situation.

FBaby

chriszzz, I totally agree, many nrps are also pwcps. You seem to think that the only situation where a nrp doesn't have to pay any longer is relating to illness. There are other situations where the nrp makes a choice to stop employment hence affecting maintenance. There have been threads here where the nrp decides to give up a good job to start a business (wouldn't I like that too!!!), or gives up a good job to become a stay at home dad whilst the nrpp goes back to work, hence getting one revenue, but without having to pay maintenance.

You state that single pwc are worse off. That's not always the case as single pwc are in most cases elligible for tax credits. if they lose their job, they are entitled to decent benefits.

Marisco, I'm not too sure what the answer is either, but I strongly believe the system isn't right. I am not only supporting pwc rights though. I am probably one of the few pwcs who totally agree that nrps should be able to know what how the maintenance is being paid. As a matter of fact, I am a strong advocate of this and don't understand why any pwc with a good conscience that all the maintenance is indeed used for the children should have any issues with this. My ex has never asked for a breakdown the few months he actually paid decent maintenance, he knows how much I always put our children first and would never spend on me before them, but just in case, I did do a breakdown of what they cost every month just in case it came up.

I tihnk what would help in the circumstances of a nrp losing his job would be for him to discuss the consequences with the pwc rather than just giving the news as a 'that's how it is now, tough, you'll have to deal with it'. They could then agree what sacrifices the children would have to make for the time being. If it is a case of them having to give up an activity, then it should be for the dad to explain to the child that due to him losing his job, he won't be able to provide as much and activities are not a priority, rather than leaving for the mum to have that conversation (and then be accused of turning the kids against the dad), or somehow having to find the money herself to make up for ithe loss of maintenance. And surely, if it comes down to the pwc having to make sacrifices so that the kids can continue to enjoy their lifestyle without being affected, shouldn't the nrp show some sort of gratitude?

chriszzz

FBaby wrote: »

chriszzz, I totally agree, many nrps are also pwcps. You seem to think that the only situation where a nrp doesn't have to pay any longer is relating to illness. There are other situations where the nrp makes a choice to stop employment hence affecting maintenance. There have been threads here where the nrp decides to give up a good job to start a business (wouldn't I like that too!!!), or gives up a good job to become a stay at home dad whilst the nrpp goes back to work, hence getting one revenue, but without having to pay maintenance.

You state that single pwc are worse off. That's not always the case as single pwc are in most cases elligible for tax credits. if they lose their job, they are entitled to decent benefits.
an continue to enjoy their lifestyle without being affected, shouldn't the nrp show some sort of gratitude?

I was merely responding to the op situation!

Situation is- my partner pays child support for his child and always has done but is now on benefits due to not being able to work after an accident and so we are struggling financially.

I am aware that there are NRPs out there who will try and get out of paying maintenance, I have had one of them NRPs and I have also had a NRP who did pay and actually stop paying due to ill health and my partner who also has an ex, pays his maintenance as well as contributing to our home (gosh sounds all very complex haha) Anyway that was in the day cos mine now are all independent individuals.

Am not under any illusion that there are some out there who want to shirk their responsibilities and am also aware that there are PWC who will fleece at every possible chance!

As for single parents i was basically talking about the stay at home parent due to young baby who rely on IS, its them am refering to if their ex can not financially contribut to the cost of raising their child.

I once was a single PWC who had a full time job and claimed tax benefits and we coped very well.

When my son father became ill and could not financialy contribute, my son had to learn that health is more important than money and its made him a nicer person for it, as for his dad (nrp) showing gratitude It never crossed my mind that he should show gratitude, it was my sons father, it was the most humane thing to do was to show that we cared about him while he was ill. I know some dont have that same feeling for their ex for their own reasons but I always made it my priority never to dis-respect my sons father to my son and it has worked for us perfectly!