What is child support meant to cover?

daisiegg

MX5huggy wrote: »

It's all meaningless if we don't know what the the NRP is earning £500 + the extras out of £30k would be an issue out of £130k would not.

Why is it meaningless? Should paying for extras be based on income, then? Again, just curious!

I'm not sure how much the NRP earns but I reckon it must be around 50k, based on other people I know doing similar jobs. He is single with no other children and no expensive hobbies, doesn't own a car, doesn't go on holiday...I don't think he begrudges spending money on his son, who he absolutely adores. As I've said, it's none of my business what these particular parents do....I was just genuinely curious about what other people's opinions might be of this situation, and if it is common!

ALIBOBSY

TBH and with respect to both NRP and PWC of which I am sure some are scheming gits (on both sides) and some are lovely people trying to look after their kids, it should be about giving your kids as much as you can afford. That can be in time of course as well as cash.

Most NRP probably gave up 100% of their income to the family unit when with the PWC and child(ren). I suppose its a balance. Both parents need to try to put petty arguments aside and put the children first in everything (I believe this is true if you are together or not). The trouble once split up the emotions and issues that caused the parents to split up get in the way and these things become bones of contention.

I knew a NRP simular to this who went out of his way to give to his child and ex. He would often pick her up and the ex would say sorry no clean clothes to give you and would give him an old pair of trainers that were too small so he would have to take her shopping for clothes and stuff. He was generous with the ex but even so she always asked for extra "for shopping".
In the end he started taking her to the shops and paying for the shopping rather than hand over cash-she soon stopped asking. He also kept a set of clothes/shoes/toys etc at his house.

My sympathies to anyone in this situation its very hard, and perhaps there is an argument for some kind of "relationship ending" councilling so these things can be discussed and sorted out with an impartial third party?

At the end of the day the NRP in the OP sounds like a good parent who is doing their best for the kids irrelavent of what is expected in law.

Ali x

fannyanna

I think sometimes PWC's can forget that the NRP is having to contribute towards two households. As well as paying towards putting a roof over the child's head (and as a consequence the PWC's) they also need to put a roof over their own heads. And if the NRP goes on to have more children the money in the pot needs to be spread further.

FBaby

Surely if he is happy to contribute with all the extras, there are no issues? Maybe she benefits from it and cashes some of the £500 for herself, but again, that would be down to him saying that he won't pay for all the extras. Some people are not money oriented and if he is single with low every day costs, maybe being able to provide all these extra for his son gives him a sense of worth and well-being. It is his choice in the end.

NewKittenHelp

daisiegg wrote: »

Why is it meaningless? Should paying for extras be based on income, then? Again, just curious!

Extras are based on income, or am I missing something crucial here?

hazellc

daisiegg wrote: »

Why is it meaningless? Should paying for extras be based on income, then? Again, just curious!

Yeah, I think so. In an ideal world, the child's standard of living would be roughly the same as if the parents were together and obviously, that standard of living depends on how much the parents earn. I'd expect someone earning more money to spend more of it on their children, no matter whether they had custody of them or not.

Dunroamin

Surely you need to look at any financial help the PWC receives from benefits to decide what the NRP's share should be (over the bare minimum).

GobbledyGook

As long as the two parents are happy with it then I don't know why anyone else would be the least bit bothered.

Over the past couple of years people have felt justified in having a real pop at me because of the things I 'expect' my ex husband to pay for over and above the maintenance he pays (and they mostly think he pays too much of that as well). However there was certain things that he had insisted on for our children (a specific expensive nursery for DD2, private swimming lessons for both girls rather than ones in the sport centre, horse riding lessons for DD1 for example) that I strongly felt that if he wanted to insist on them then he should pay for them. In my case after the initial bitterness over our breakup he agreed with me. We were both more than happy with our agreement, and most importantly it meant that the children kept their lifestyle and that's all that matters. Why other people feel the need to get annoyed or irate about my (or anyone's) maintenance agreement I've no idea. Nobody apart from the two people involved know all of the ins and outs of the agreements.

Bluemeanie_2

cazziebo wrote: »

In so many cases, if the NRP was still part of the family unit, NRPs would be paying far more than the set maintenance for their children. Children are expensive.

Although this is strictly true, I would like to point out that the NRP has to run another home, so by nature of splitting the family up, there are two homes to be run, not just one. Also frequently, the NRP can't have a 1 bed small flat to save on costs if the have their children for any substantial overnight contact. secondly if the PWC is on their own and their income is less than £24k they will receive some tax credits that they will keep in full despite the fact the NRP may have the kids 3 nights a week, same for the CB. So although I technically agree, maintenance is less than what you'd pay if you were still a family unit, the NRP does have another home to run in most cases which is just an unfortunate side effect (?) of a break up.

olibrofiz

Out of the maintenance ex provided for DD the only things I asked him to contribute extra to were school uniform at the beginning of each year (normally half of about £80), any school trips or expensive things she wanted for xmas/birthday (eg a laptop) we also went halfs on,

If he decided she needed something, he bought her it (ie: walking boots, outdoor coat, swimsuit)- and if she went on a family holiday with him he paid for that. If I asked him to buy her something while she was with him, I gave him the money for it.

He earns loads, but I'm grateful we have a decent enough relationship where we can talk through things - I don't expect him to keep me in wine.....