Help for Easter holidays

Morlock

Dunroamin wrote: »

Unless one parent has moved away from the home area, there's no reason why access has to mean overnight access, in the way that many people seem to think essential.

Oh yes! I never thought of that, problem solved.

It would mean that NRPs never have the pleasure of reading their child a bedtime story and kissing them goodnight, waking them in the morning and experiencing the cuteness of a 'sleepyhead' (which is beneficial for the child too). Also, the children still need feeding even if they don't stay overnight, something for which the PWC receives benefits even whilst not having the responsibility and expense of looking after children.

What would you suggest in a scenario where the PWC unexpectedly drops the children on the doorstep with a suitcase for the weekend, as has happened to me on numerous occasions?

Dunroamin

Morlock wrote: »

It would mean that NRPs never have the pleasure of reading their child a bedtime story and kissing them goodnight, waking them in the morning and experiencing the cuteness of a 'sleepyhead' (which is beneficial for the child too). Also, the children still need feeding even if they don't stay overnight, something for which the PWC receives benefits even whilst not having the responsibility and expense of looking after children.

Great (if slightly nauseating) if you can afford to do this, if not, alternatives need to be found.

janninew

It does seem slightly unfair, surely the benefit money that is given is for the children and their needs? If the children are with Dad for a fortnight, Mum won't have the same levels of expenditure that she would if the children were with her.

If I were in her position, I would probably split the money with Dad and be happy to know that my children and their Dad can have an enjoyable fortnight together and maybe even go on a nice day out some where. I wouldn't want to think of my children going to their Dad's and he being worried about how he will feed them. Yes she will still have bills, but she won't have 2 children to feed for a fortnight, that will make a difference to her shopping bill.

The benefits system is unfair though, so you will just have to make the best of it!

Enjoy your time together, hopefully the weather will be nice and you can have plenty of walks and picnics, these won't cost to much money and are really enjoyable in the sunshine.

angelbob

Before i join in the 'bash single mums thread' i'm one so you can guess the side i'm on, BUT is the OP paying anything for the 50 weeks a year he doesn't have his children overnight.
if he is good maybe mum could help out.
But if he doesn't then i have no sympathy and whats to stop you (like others said) saving, ebaying and getting another job.x

Morlock

Dunroamin wrote: »

Great (if slightly nauseating) if you can afford to do this, if not, alternatives need to be found.

A lot of PWC would not be able to afford to feed their children if not for the benefits system. The fact that only one parent has that advantage, even when care is equal, is unfair on the parent that does not benefit from government subsidies.

I agree that alternatives need to be found, how about making sure that both parents benefit according to the time that they are responsible for their children?

skintandscared_2

angelbob wrote: »

Before i join in the 'bash single mums thread' i'm one so you can guess the side i'm on, BUT is the OP paying anything for the 50 weeks a year he doesn't have his children overnight.
if he is good maybe mum could help out.
But if he doesn't then i have no sympathy and whats to stop you (like others said) saving, ebaying and getting another job.x

The OP clearly stated in post #3 that he pays child support through the CSA. He also said he lives with someone who is disabled so there may well be reasons he cannot get another job.

BigAunty

janninew wrote: »

It does seem slightly unfair, surely the benefit money that is given is for the children and their needs? If the children are with Dad for a fortnight, Mum won't have the same levels of expenditure that she would if the children were with her.

If I were in her position, I would probably split the money with Dad and be happy to know that my children and their Dad can have an enjoyable fortnight together and maybe even go on a nice day out some where.
...

Yes, it's a crying shame that the mother doesn't understand her ex's position or does understand but won't help out if she can.

However, at the end of the day, it shouldn't be up to the state to intervene in minor domestic matters such as dividing up child related benefits between those who share the children, though its a shame that family politics can lead to unfairness.

It's also a shame that this country requires the CSA to try and enforce NRP to fund the upbringing of their children with so many deliberately hiding from their basic moral responsibilities, prefering their children to suffer hardship rather than contribute towards their basic costs.

janninew

BigAunty wrote: »

Yes, it's a crying shame that the mother doesn't understand her ex's position or does understand but won't help out if she can.

However, at the end of the day, it shouldn't be up to the state to intervene in minor domestic matters such as dividing up child related benefits between those who share the children, though its a shame that family politics can lead to unfairness.

It's also a shame that this country requires the CSA to try and enforce NRP to fund the upbringing of their children with so many deliberately hiding from their basic moral responsibilities, prefering their children to suffer hardship rather than contribute towards their basic costs.

I don't believe it should be up to the state either, grown adults should be able to put their children's needs first and do the right thing.

I don't believe that with out very generous benefit system for single parents that children should suffer hardship, even if the NRP won't pay. I think in an ideal world both parents should be paying for their own children and state intervention should be a last resort not a way of life for years.

FBaby

The cost of having the kids for one or two weeks will not be comparable to the costs incurred by the pwc. He won't have to buy extra clothes, he won't have to pay for school trips, for mobile top-ups, for the cost of having extra space in the house to accommodate the children.

The only essential costs will be food and maybe a bit of extra electricity/gas. Surely this could be saved for for 3 weeks out of 52? He doesn't have to take them out anywhere costly, there are many free activities they can do together.

I personally feel quite differently depending on the situation. If she is a single mum on full benefits, then yes, in essence, I would think it fair to provide something, although limited because she will still need to cover costs even with them not there. If however the pwc is working full-time, claiming tax credits only to pay for childcare (which she might still need to pay as some providers don't make allowance for holidays), and overall contributes much more every week towards the children than he does, then I don't think it is wrong that she should refuse to provide a share of her benefits.