What is child support meant to cover?

fannyanna

Bluemeanie wrote: »

I'm not talking about nights out or holidays, I'm talking about running a whole other household.

I find it outright ridiclous that you say NRP's should just rent a room instead of living in a house and providing a bedroom etc for their children to stay and see them at Grandparents.

Firstly that may not be possible and secondly why should they? They are entitled to live where they wish, as long as they are providing for their kids.

You are of course entitled to your opinion that "kids come first", but there are people that disagree with you and they are also entitled to do this.

What she said (times a million)

Claire212

My son's father (NRP) pays us £90 per month. He refuses to contribute any more than this amount, My partner and I had a baby this year, I asked my son's father to contribute towards a school trip as we could not afford to pay it all, he said no and claimed that because we got (and I quote) 'money from the government' we should use that because he assumes we get hundreds of pounds in tax credits a month, when we don't.

I think that too many NRP's overestimate PWC's income. The £90 he gives us does not even cover a growing 11 year olds monthly food bill when you include school dinners at around £10 per week.

We have learned not to rock the boat, after all he has his own bills to pay, and we are just grateful that he spends time with him, they often go on day trips together and on holiday once a year, and when my son's face lights up when he talks about his Dad and what they did together it means so much more to me than a pair of shoes. But that doesn't mean it doesn't bug me.

Those fathers who don't see their kids just to avoid paying are the ones losing out.

'Child Support' should mean supporting a child in anyway you can, the money just helps a lot!

Fire_Fox

Gigglepig wrote: »

It is true that NRPs need to contribute to two households - but kids come first, before nights out or holidays.

It should not be such a big problem, as long as the NRP does not take on responsibility for a new family? If the NRP is single they can rent a room and have contact for example at grandparents?

You could equally well argue the resident parent could sleep on a sofa bed/ decent fold out chair, so have one less bedroom and spend more on the children. You assume grandparents have the space, time or inclination to accommodate a single parent family overnight on a regular basis, that children and NRP are totally comfortable at the grandparents, able to treat it as home in every sense.

daisiegg

Fire_Fox wrote: »

You could equally well argue the resident parent could sleep on a sofa bed/ decent fold out chair, so have one less bedroom and spend more on the children. You assume grandparents have the space, time or inclination to accommodate a single parent family overnight on a regular basis, that children and NRP are totally comfortable at the grandparents, able to treat it as home in every sense.

Not to mention the assumption that grandparents are alive and local!

Bluemeanie_2

Claire212 wrote: »

My son's father (NRP) pays us £90 per month. He refuses to contribute any more than this amount, My partner and I had a baby this year, I asked my son's father to contribute towards a school trip as we could not afford to pay it all, he said no and claimed that because we got (and I quote) 'money from the government' we should use that because he assumes we get hundreds of pounds in tax credits a month, when we don't.

I think that too many NRP's overestimate PWC's income. The £90 he gives us does not even cover a growing 11 year olds monthly food bill when you include school dinners at around £10 per week.

We have learned not to rock the boat, after all he has his own bills to pay, and we are just grateful that he spends time with him, they often go on day trips together and on holiday once a year, and when my son's face lights up when he talks about his Dad and what they did together it means so much more to me than a pair of shoes. But that doesn't mean it doesn't bug me.

Those fathers who don't see their kids just to avoid paying are the ones losing out.

'Child Support' should mean supporting a child in anyway you can, the money just helps a lot!

It works the opposite way in a sense. The more overnights you have the kids, the more of a reduction you get. Unless you are on nil rate or the £5 minimum.

I can see where he is coming from to an extent. You do get the CB (£20.40), plus what tax credits you get, plus his £15 a week (which is not reflected in whatever tax credits you get, so in a way you are £15 a week better off than a family who has two kids by the same men). Your rent/mortgage, gas, elec, council tax etc would be the same whether or not his child lived with you, and if he has son overnight, he can't really have a one bed flat to save himself money.

If he has been assessed to pay only £15 a week he is obviously on a lowish income. It seems he is making an effort spending money on your son when he has him. Maybe on that low income even if you were together he couldn't have afforded for him to go on the school trip. Or maybe that would mean giving up the holiday he get's to go on with him and he values it more as he gets to spend that holiday with his son and on the school trip he wouldn't.

I'll admit he isn't doing himself any favours by saying things like "you get money from the government". But sometimes you have to look at it from someone else's perspective. You have another child and partner, so from his point of view he probably thinks "why should I subsidise them?". And as I said, you are actually technically £15 a week better off than a family with your exact income with two kids by the same Father, as it isn't counted anywhere for benefit purposes.

I'm not having a pop (though sometimes written down I know it can feel that way, as you cannot feel my tone) I am just debating and offering you another viewpoint.

lilymay1

Have the government decided to start including maintenance for benefit purposes yet?

Jinx

To me child support provides for the basics, help toward a roof over the childs head, food, warm clothing etc.

If its enough to help towards hobbies and trips, holidays etc then so much the better.

My ex always paid the basic but I earned too so it worked out okay. We both paid toward xmas pressies, and we both paid to take our child on holiday. Normally I would give her spending money if she was going with her dad and vice versa. Although her dad could have stopped paying maintenance when she went to uni, he paid half her normal maintenance to her and continued until she finished. It should be all about the child, but its easy for it not to be.

Bluemeanie_2

lilymay1 wrote: »

Have the government decided to start including maintenance for benefit purposes yet?

No. It doesn't get counted as "income" for the PWC so they get the same amount of benefits regardless of how much maintenance they receive. And the NRP can't disregard CS when submitting income for their benefit purposes which seems one sided.

lilymay1

Bluemeanie wrote: »

No. It doesn't get counted as "income" for the PWC so they get the same amount of benefits regardless of how much maintenance they receive. And the NRP can't disregard CS when submitting income for their benefit purposes which seems one sided.

I can't fathom why it was never included in the first place? A bit like maternity allowance. The entire amount is disregarded, where as SMP only the first £100 is.

Bluemeanie_2

lilymay1 wrote: »

I can't fathom why it was never included in the first place? A bit like maternity allowance. The entire amount is disregarded, where as SMP only the first £100 is.

Apparently it was up until April 2010 and then they stopped.