How much child support?

Mojisola

Jacks_xxx wrote: »

I just think the child is "entitled" to a Dad who gives a monkeys about them that's all.

He seems mainly concerned with not helping the mother of his child at any cost and doesn't seem to realise or care that he's hurting his child in the process.

And the child is entitled to a mother who lives within her means, not wanting a bigger house than necessary and expecting someone else to pay for it.

timberflake

Jacks_xxx wrote: »

I thought you said the extra money was to pay her rent so the child can stay living in a nice house?

Nothing about the child's mother having her hair done.

If he's happy to pay only the bare minimum even though it will have negative consequences to his child then he is what he is.

I just think the child is "entitled" to a Dad who gives a monkeys about them that's all.

He seems mainly concerned with not helping the mother of his child at any cost and doesn't seem to realise or care that he's hurting his child in the process.

It's called child support, noth mother support. If she can't afford to live where she currently is because the government has reduced her benefits she'll have to move, just like any of us would. It's not like her rent's cheap, she doesn't need a 3 bed house @ £750 pcm, and the government know that, hence the reduction. She could quite easily get a 2 bed in the same area for £50 a month less, she just doesn't want to.

Just like she wont take the daughter out of nursery until she starts school in Sept, even though it would save her £150 a month, and then has the cheek to plead poverty to the father!

He's responsible for the child, and the mother to a point, but why should he subsidise her lifestyle especially when shes unwilling to make a couple of simple changes which would save her £200 pcm.

Caroline_a

I've stayed out of this until now, but it doesn't seem to be moving on much so I thought I'd add my thoughts. There seems to be a lot about what about his/her rights, but OP you seem to be taking the child totally out of the equation. If we look at it with the bare facts, he is obliged by law to pay 15% from him income to pay for the upkeep of this child. The fact that the mother could spend it all on booze and going out at this stage is immaterial. If he feels that the mother is spending the child support on things that do not impact on the child on a positive way then it is his right to step in and apply for residency. That is, if he feels the child is suffering and she is a bad mother.

What he cannot do is dictate where the mother lives with the child (within the UK), as it is assumed by the courts that the mother will take the child's welfare into consideration for any move she makes (ie nearer to family and support for example). Also he cannot dictate what type of house she lives in - if she feels she can afford on her income a 4 bedroom detached, then he cannot say 'I'm not paying because you should be living in a bedsit'. Bit of an exaggerated example, but you get the gist.

If he cannot afford to have a child with his wife due to his outgoings on this then unfortunately that's just tough - the existing child has to come first, whoever the mother is, rather than a child that hasn't been conceived yet.

One 'advantage' to the child being so far away is that he can spend longer stays with her - she can come and stay with him for days on end, rather than the usual 9 - 5 on a Saturday.

I'm not sure why you are so embittered by all this, OP. This type of negative posturing by adults can only have a bad influence on the child, whether by the NRP stopping payments, or by the RP griping about the father to the child.

I was in a similar situation when I split with my ex. I moved 200 miles away to move back to my home town. No, my ex didn't like it, but 15 years on he will be the first to admit that I did the right thing for my daughter. She has had far better opportunities than she could ever have had if we had stayed. As far as the maintenance went, he never paid a penny. The CSA chased him, but he refused and changed jobs more often than most people change their underwear. After a very acrimonious divorce, I got on with my life and I think I've done ok. My daughter certainly has. He on the other hand was bitter for a long long time, and now lives on benefits, mostly due to him giving up jobs in order to avoid paying child support. I supported my daughter the whole time myself, no benefits of any sort.

If you are a true friend to this man, then you need to encourage him to be more positive and supportive, if only for the child's sake. It is not your fight and you should not be involved on any level with it, apart from just listening if he wants to unload.

timberflake

Caroline_a wrote: »

I've stayed out of this until now, but it doesn't seem to be moving on much so I thought I'd add my thoughts. There seems to be a lot about what about his/her rights, but OP you seem to be taking the child totally out of the equation. If we look at it with the bare facts, he is obliged by law to pay 15% from him income to pay for the upkeep of this child. The fact that the mother could spend it all on booze and going out at this stage is immaterial. If he feels that the mother is spending the child support on things that do not impact on the child on a positive way then it is his right to step in and apply for residency. That is, if he feels the child is suffering and she is a bad mother.

What he cannot do is dictate where the mother lives with the child (within the UK), as it is assumed by the courts that the mother will take the child's welfare into consideration for any move she makes (ie nearer to family and support for example). Also he cannot dictate what type of house she lives in - if she feels she can afford on her income a 4 bedroom detached, then he cannot say 'I'm not paying because you should be living in a bedsit'. Bit of an exaggerated example, but you get the gist.

If he cannot afford to have a child with his wife due to his outgoings on this then unfortunately that's just tough - the existing child has to come first, whoever the mother is, rather than a child that hasn't been conceived yet.

One 'advantage' to the child being so far away is that he can spend longer stays with her - she can come and stay with him for days on end, rather than the usual 9 - 5 on a Saturday.

I'm not sure why you are so embittered by all this, OP. This type of negative posturing by adults can only have a bad influence on the child, whether by the NRP stopping payments, or by the RP griping about the father to the child.

I was in a similar situation when I split with my ex. I moved 200 miles away to move back to my home town. No, my ex didn't like it, but 15 years on he will be the first to admit that I did the right thing for my daughter. She has had far better opportunities than she could ever have had if we had stayed. As far as the maintenance went, he never paid a penny. The CSA chased him, but he refused and changed jobs more often than most people change their underwear. After a very acrimonious divorce, I got on with my life and I think I've done ok. My daughter certainly has. He on the other hand was bitter for a long long time, and now lives on benefits, mostly due to him giving up jobs in order to avoid paying child support. I supported my daughter the whole time myself, no benefits of any sort.

If you are a true friend to this man, then you need to encourage him to be more positive and supportive, if only for the child's sake. It is not your fight and you should not be involved on any level with it, apart from just listening if he wants to unload.

I agree with most of what you say, but she clearly can't afford to live is her current house as she's saying she's only left with £30 a month to buy food on, and is expecting the father to pony up the dough. Surely this is unreasonable, when she could easily save £200 a month by moving to a 2 bed house on the same estate and taking her daughter out of nursery, she starts school in Sept and it's not like she's got a lot on and needs her in nursery.

If she's still struggling after all non essentials have been cut then maybe the fether might feel she has a case for requesting more money, but she won't cut back on anything. She's just found £400 for a new laptop so why should the father give her more when she won't help herself? Is the father just meant to keep giving her more and more, where do you draw the line!?

EDIT: Just to add, the mother also won't let the daughter come down and stay with the father as she doesn't want her round his wife. His friends and family (apart from grandparents) are yet to meet his daughter.

Caroline_a

But that isn't any concern of the father! He pays what he has to... it is then up to her to juggle her budget! Even if she's just bought a luxury yacht, then says she can't afford her rent, then that is her problem and not his. He has done what is required - she may be bad at budgeting, but throwing more money at someone who is will never be the answer! If he really wants to support her he could direct her on to these boards, but he cannot get involved in what she spends her money on!

Edit - re your edit. If he wants more access to his daughter then he will have to go to court. There is no easy way around that, and although I hate to say it, if he puts it into court local to him then she will have to travel to attend. I had to as my ex went (on full legal aid) for residency, and the judge made an order that my daughter was to spend half the school holidays with him. Obviously this child is younger, but it needs to be sorted sooner rather than later - the mother does not 'own' the child.

timberflake

Caroline_a wrote: »

But that isn't any concern of the father! He pays what he has to... it is then up to her to juggle her budget! Even if she's just bought a luxury yacht, then says she can't afford her rent, then that is her problem and not his. He has done what is required - she may be bad at budgeting, but throwing more money at someone who is will never be the answer! If he really wants to support her he could direct her on to these boards, but he cannot get involved in what she spends her money on!

I'm not sure if that in support of my post or not, but it becomes his concern when she says to him that he has to pay more money because she can't afford to buy food. She needs to cut back on the non essentials, then she'll have £200 extrra a month, but rather than doing that she's trying to guilt the father into paying more.

Caroline_a

I repeat - you shouldn't get involved. People lie about how much money they have. If she rings him up and says 'I don't have any money left', then his answer should be something like 'Sorry, nor do I. I can't afford to pay you anything else'. She will then have to get a crisis loan, etc to tide her over.

It sounds to me like both parties are using the child to twist things the way they want - my advice to you would be walk away and let them sort it themselves, you will only add complication to it all. The father, rightly or wrongly, should only be concerned with the welfare of his child, and if he feels that the child isn't getting what she should be getting in the way of food, housing and care then he should go to court for residency. He cannot solve the mother's problems with money by throwing more money at it, and you will only make things worse if you stir it up more!

POPPYOSCAR

Caroline_a wrote: »

I've stayed out of this until now, but it doesn't seem to be moving on much so I thought I'd add my thoughts. There seems to be a lot about what about his/her rights, but OP you seem to be taking the child totally out of the equation. If we look at it with the bare facts, he is obliged by law to pay 15% from him income to pay for the upkeep of this child. The fact that the mother could spend it all on booze and going out at this stage is immaterial. If he feels that the mother is spending the child support on things that do not impact on the child on a positive way then it is his right to step in and apply for residency. That is, if he feels the child is suffering and she is a bad mother.

What he cannot do is dictate where the mother lives with the child (within the UK), as it is assumed by the courts that the mother will take the child's welfare into consideration for any move she makes (ie nearer to family and support for example). Also he cannot dictate what type of house she lives in - if she feels she can afford on her income a 4 bedroom detached, then he cannot say 'I'm not paying because you should be living in a bedsit'. Bit of an exaggerated example, but you get the gist.

If he cannot afford to have a child with his wife due to his outgoings on this then unfortunately that's just tough - the existing child has to come first, whoever the mother is, rather than a child that hasn't been conceived yet.

One 'advantage' to the child being so far away is that he can spend longer stays with her - she can come and stay with him for days on end, rather than the usual 9 - 5 on a Saturday.

I'm not sure why you are so embittered by all this, OP. This type of negative posturing by adults can only have a bad influence on the child, whether by the NRP stopping payments, or by the RP griping about the father to the child.

I was in a similar situation when I split with my ex. I moved 200 miles away to move back to my home town. No, my ex didn't like it, but 15 years on he will be the first to admit that I did the right thing for my daughter. She has had far better opportunities than she could ever have had if we had stayed. As far as the maintenance went, he never paid a penny. The CSA chased him, but he refused and changed jobs more often than most people change their underwear. After a very acrimonious divorce, I got on with my life and I think I've done ok. My daughter certainly has. He on the other hand was bitter for a long long time, and now lives on benefits, mostly due to him giving up jobs in order to avoid paying child support. I supported my daughter the whole time myself, no benefits of any sort.

If you are a true friend to this man, then you need to encourage him to be more positive and supportive, if only for the child's sake. It is not your fight and you should not be involved on any level with it, apart from just listening if he wants to unload.

You seem to be missing the point here.

No one has a problem with him giving the required amount by the CSA. It is the fact that she is asking for more to cover the shortfall in her rent due to benefit changes.

Most of us do not have anyone else to look to when something like this happens, we have to move house, or cut down on other things.

She is very lucky to have a three bedroom house for herself and just one child, I know a family that have a child and are living in a one bed flat. And another family with two children living in a two bed place.

As for moving 200 miles just look at another thread where the father has been slated for doing such a thing.

POPPYOSCAR

timberflake wrote: »

I said SHE wont get a penny more, not the child. He'll gladly pay to take her out, buy her toys, clothes etc, in addition to his monthly payment to the mother, but why should he give her more than he should that she could then theorectically spend on going out, getting her hair done, etc? Whats wrong with her a resonable amount each month ie 15%, then pay for anything extra as he see's fit. She isn't entitled to anything more thsn 15%.

Lets look at the facts. He travels 200 miles 2/3 times a month to see his daughter, he's been over paying thus far, and paying child care which isn't required in addition to this. He's written off a lot of loans to the mother as its clear she doesnt have the means to ever pay him back, we're talking hundreds of £'s, possibly thousands!

He's just taken a job in London to enable him to put more money away for his daughters future, even though it means a 14 hour day commuting etc.

Yes, i agree, a terrible father.

His wife must be a saint!!

Marisco

timberflake wrote: »

I'm not sure if that in support of my post or not, but it becomes his concern when she says to him that he has to pay more money because she can't afford to buy food. She needs to cut back on the non essentials, then she'll have £200 extrra a month, but rather than doing that she's trying to guilt the father into paying more.

Agree with this, she does need to cut back! Why should he subsidise her lifestyle when she won't help herself! As to the guilt thing, my oh's ex did this, it's easy enough for folk to say that what she spends her money on has nowt to do with the NRP, but it does, when they are whining on that they cannot afford food for the kids, although full CSA is getting paid, along with all sorts of other extras!!

Who would be hard hearted enough to say "sod the kids let them starve"? Oh's ex tried this on until I went and bought a bag of food for her (this was end of tether time after months and months of hassle and nastyness!) It was the last time she tried that little trick!