Help for seperated fathers?

t0rt0ise

gingergee wrote: »

There are often flats in Bampton (north Devon) for about 400pcm x Oh and i feed a family of 6 (including a 13 yr old who eats like a horse lol) for 40-50 a week. I buy meat and veg, then use leftovers for soups. I bake my own pies and cakes (under supervision lol in case i burn the house down!) We have a roast every sunday, then the meat is used for sandwiches for kids lunches etc. Anything is possible if you try hard enough x

What about all the other things that have to be bought, like washing powder, cleaning stuff, bleach, shampoo, soap, etc etc. People are all so clever at saying how much they spend on food but that isn't what most of the expenditure is about.

Also when people talk about single people they forget that when the children are grown, the woman will also be a single person with no benefits to add to her salary, probably a salary that is reduced from what it might have been had she not had a break in her full time career to look after the children. Swings and roundabouts really.. or that's what I have found.

lazer

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Unless the separated parents live some distance away from each other, there's really no reason why weekend access has to involve overnight stays as most children would rather sleep in their own room.

Having the child overnight for the weekend often seems to be for the benefit of the PWC's social life rather than for the good of the child(ren).

The child overnight is for the good of the child and their relationship with the NRP (usually the father), they get to tuck them in at night, tell them a story and do what they would normally do had they still be living with the child.

And addition to this aspect, there is of course the reduction in Maintenance for overnight stays. Is it fair that the NRP doesn't get the maintenace reduction for the child staying overnight, if he has them all day Saturday, leaves them home to sleep and picks them up first thing sunday?

midnight_express

t0rt0ise wrote: »

What about all the other things that have to be bought, like washing powder, cleaning stuff, bleach, shampoo, soap, etc etc. People are all so clever at saying how much they spend on food but that isn't what most of the expenditure is about.

Also when people talk about single people they forget that when the children are grown, the woman will also be a single person with no benefits to add to her salary, probably a salary that is reduced from what it might have been had she not had a break in her full time career to look after the children. Swings and roundabouts really.. or that's what I have found.

We get them on here all the time moaning about how are they supposed to manage without benefits when the little money makers
have grown up. The thing is the childfree spend their lives supporting themselves and supporting the breeders and their kids where as those with kids expect to spend their lives subsidised by benefits. A crazy state of affairs in an over populated country and an over populated world.

MissMoneypenny

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Unless the separated parents live some distance away from each other, there's really no reason why weekend access has to involve overnight stays as most children would rather sleep in their own room.

Having the child overnight for the weekend often seems to be for the benefit of the PWC's social life rather than for the good of the child(ren).

I suspect it has more to do with the NRP getting a reduction in the maintenance they pay, if they keep the child/ren overnight.

Either way, it's a shame the child isn't put first. I agree that most children would rather sleep in their own room.

MissMoneypenny

lazer wrote: »

Is it fair that the NRP doesn't get the maintenace reduction for the child staying overnight, if he has them all day Saturday, leaves them home to sleep and picks them up first thing sunday?

There you go.......it's a financial gain for the NRP.

BigAunty

If the benefit system did take into account child maintenance payments for the non-resident parent, then we'd have even more problems with current imbalance whereby more is paid out in benefits than is paid into the system through employee taxation.

So, too, with tackling the astronomical housing benefit bill which has virtually doubled over the last 10 years or so because both parents would be eligible for an extra bedroom each that was unoccupied by the child for half the time, as if there isn't a housing shortage already.

It would mean that many more separated households would have the public purse supporting both households - anything from income support, child benefit, child tax credits, housing benefit and council tax benefit for the parent with child (assuming the lone parent is not working) then perhaps also working tax benefit, housing benefit and council tax discount for the the parent without child (assuming this parent is working).

Where is this money going to come from that would have to fund a very large percentage of households that had a relationship breakdown if it is extended to the second household from their split?

Or do we keep the system as it is which demands that the parent that doesn't have primary responsibility for the care of the child and is in employment has to accept that they must change their lifestyle to fit their changed financial circumstances?

Many people have sudden and unwanted changes to their life that mean either an unanticipated reduction of income and/or increase in expenses. Some can be resolved through benefits and others have to be sucked up and managed without state intervention.

lazer

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

I suspect it has more to do with the NRP getting a reduction in the maintenance they pay, if they keep the child/ren overnight.

Either way, it's a shame the child isn't put first. I agree that most children would rather sleep in their own room.

I suspect from that comment that you don't know many NRP's and see how they react to not having thier children, seeing them for a few hours is not the same as being there to put them to bed and being there when they wake up.
I think the child spending nights with both parents is putting the child first.

It is not all about money, in fact I know of a NRP who's child has recently decided that he only wants to come to visit every other weekend, as he wants to see his friends, his other brother and sister etc, the NRP is devastated. If it was all about money surely he would be happy as he doesn't have to feed and entertain him on those days (His maintenace will most likely be unaffected - private arrangement)

Also, when i was a child I loved staying over in other peoples house, it was an adventure.
However the NRP had the child 3 nights a week and the PWC 4 nights a week, then i think the child would see both rooms as their own room.

mumps

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

most children would rather sleep in their own room.

Really? The first thing my grandchildren say to me is "Can we stay at yours tonight?" They normally come two nights a week but it can be more and in school holidays they will be in my spare room more often than their own rooms. It is even worse when my youngest is home from university, every night of the week is barely enough then.

lazer

BigAunty wrote: »

If the benefit system did take into account child maintenance payments for the non-resident parent, then we'd have even more problems with current imbalance whereby more is paid out in benefits than is paid into the system through employee taxation.

So, too, with tackling the astronomical housing benefit bill which has virtually doubled over the last 10 years or so because both parents would be eligible for an extra bedroom each that was unoccupied by the child for half the time, as if there isn't a housing shortage already.

It would mean that many more separated households would have the public purse supporting both households - anything from income support, child benefit, child tax credits, housing benefit and council tax benefit for the parent with child (assuming the lone parent is not working) then perhaps also working tax benefit, housing benefit and council tax discount for the the parent without child (assuming this parent is working).

Where is this money going to come from that would have to fund a very large percentage of households that had a relationship breakdown if it is extended to the second household from their split?

Or do we keep the system as it is which demands that the parent that doesn't have primary responsibility for the care of the child and is in employment has to accept that they must change their lifestyle to fit their changed financial circumstances?

Many people have sudden and unwanted changes to their life that mean either an unanticipated reduction of income and/or increase in expenses. Some can be resolved through benefits and others have to be sucked up and managed without state intervention.

Now - where was it stated that they should get an extra room allowance, I simply suggested that they should be allowed the one bedroom rate as opposed to the shared room rate, as then the child would not have to cope with non family members and would have some privacy etc also.
There has to be some allowance made for NRP's to be able to maintain relationships with there children.

And if you really wanted to claw back the money for this, then simply reduce the PWC's benefits (or at least some of them) by 1/7th for each night the child is not with them.

mumps

BigAunty wrote: »

If the benefit system did take into account child maintenance payments for the non-resident parent, then we'd have even more problems with current imbalance whereby more is paid out in benefits than is paid into the system through employee taxation.

So, too, with tackling the astronomical housing benefit bill which has virtually doubled over the last 10 years or so because both parents would be eligible for an extra bedroom each that was unoccupied by the child for half the time, as if there isn't a housing shortage already.

It would mean that many more separated households would have the public purse supporting both households - anything from income support, child benefit, child tax credits, housing benefit and council tax benefit for the parent with child (assuming the lone parent is not working) then perhaps also working tax benefit, housing benefit and council tax discount for the the parent without child (assuming this parent is working).

Where is this money going to come from that would have to fund a very large percentage of households that had a relationship breakdown if it is extended to the second household from their split?

Or do we keep the system as it is which demands that the parent that doesn't have primary responsibility for the care of the child and is in employment has to accept that they must change their lifestyle to fit their changed financial circumstances?

Many people have sudden and unwanted changes to their life that mean either an unanticipated reduction of income and/or increase in expenses. Some can be resolved through benefits and others have to be sucked up and managed without state intervention.

Maybe housing benefit could be used to provide a house for the child and the adults could sort themselves out when it isn't one their nights to stay with the child(ren.)