Mother reducing overnight stays

babsand16

kevin137 wrote: »

Is there currently an order for contact...?

If there is, and the PWC is breaching this order then go back to court, if it is an agreement in writing, but no court order, make an application to court, if there is nothing, then again make an application and get as much evidence as you can of previous contact for overnight stays...

Contact that is not overnight is still YOUR responsibility, even though you would not be expected to provide clothing you are still expected to pay for food etc, so think of it that you are paying twice...! I always made sure i have something by way of spare clothes, and nappies at a younger age, then if it was not provided, and i don't mean intentionally, but PWC can be as absent minded as the rest of us, then you can cope with no drama...

Do not get into an argument over anything until you know exactly where you stand... And while this may not be what you want to hear, if you have a reduction, for overnights, then legally you are already given a discount to provide for the child/ren on these days, so while it is petty and wrong of the PWC to take this course, if you can be an adult about it, put it to one side and don't bite, any action you take further down the road will show as her being the trouble maker...

Try to do everything regarding contact by email, text or letter, email is my favourite as it is very easy to print for a judge in court, should it be required...

But good luck and stay calm...!

Thanks. Don't worry, all contact is via email as verbal contact broke down a number of months ago. The child is 6 and the mother tries to make everything as difficult as possible, she also tries to speak to the father when he picks his son up... sometimes he bites and responds to her but I've told him not to do it.
Food etc isn't a problem, its purely the clothes that we don't feel he should have to provide... although its not really a choice... theres literally no money to buy clothing with now that she is going through the CSA.
He does get a reduction but not much due to them only classing overnight stays, its not possible for him to have these (other than weekends) due to work patterns.

shoe*diva79

Wy is the NRP struggling for money? How may children is he paying for? I only this one he should still have 85% of his salary. Is he in debt or living beyond his means?

I only ask as you can pick up a couple of pairs of jeans/trackie bottoms, some t shirts and a jumper for around a tenner in Tesco or Sainsburys basic range.

No need to get expensive brand names that a 6 year old wont get the wear out of from limited visits and growth spurts.

babsand16

shoe*diva79 wrote: »

Wy is the NRP struggling for money? How may children is he paying for? I only this one he should still have 85% of his salary. Is he in debt or living beyond his means?

I only ask as you can pick up a couple of pairs of jeans/trackie bottoms, some t shirts and a jumper for around a tenner in Tesco or Sainsburys basic range.

No need to get expensive brand names that a 6 year old wont get the wear out of from limited visits and growth spurts.

No other children.
Living on his own. They previously had a family based arrangement for support that she was happy with, but then she started to make things difficult as she realised he wasn't going to get back with her. When she was able to accept lower payments he was living within his means. Now the support has gone up by 50-60% it has meant that he has to continue paying things that he is contractually bound to pay, but with lower funds at his disposal. He rarely goes out or socialises and is always hundreds of pounds into his overdraft each month.
Buying him some cheap clothes isn't the problem its the principle that she is deliberately making things difficult for the father so that he impacted negatively financially. To put things into perspective without going into the gory details, she told him in no uncertain terms that she will financially break him, force him to lose the home he currently has (which allows his son to feel at home (away from home)). Its quite unpleasant.

shoe*diva79

If she is going through the Csa then surely he is only paying his legal amount of 15% - or does he have arrears? If he is paying stuff over and above that then he can stop. He is not obliged to pay anything in addition.

babsand16

shoe*diva79 wrote: »

If she is going through the Csa then surely he is only paying his legal amount of 15% - or does he have arrears? If he is paying stuff over and above that then he can stop. He is not obliged to pay anything in addition.

No he does not have arrears and he doesn't pay anything extra.

kevin137

papa_face wrote: »

Out of curiosity, the mother is now starting to tell the dad that he must start buying clothes etc for the child when he visits as she will not be putting things into a bag/suitcase any more when he stays for weekends. Is it unreasonable to expect her to do this? The father is scraping through as it is without the additional expense of buying a 2nd lot of things for his son.

@shoe*diva79

This is the point though, even if he is paying his 15%

What happens in the above circumstances...? He is paying, has NO spare money and potentially has the kids staying with him, and no legal obligation to provide clothing as he has already paid...

So the PWC can kick up after this as they came home in dirty clothes he didn't provide for them etc etc and will try to stop contact... There is right and then there is manipulative...

Sucks in my eyes that the children are just pawns in cases like this...!

shoe*diva79

Im not sure what the problem is then? He pays 15% of his income towards the cost of raising his son, leaving him with 85% of his income. This is how it will be until his child is at least 18. If he is struggling to pay then he does need to look at his outgoings. He can post a SOA on the debt free wanna be board and they can help show him where he can make savings.

shoe*diva79

kevin137 wrote: »

@shoe*diva79

This is the point though, even if he is paying his 15%

What happens in the above circumstances...? He is paying, has NO spare money and potentially has the kids staying with him, and no legal obligation to provide clothing as he has already paid...

So the PWC can kick up after this as they came home in dirty clothes he didn't provide for them etc etc and will try to stop contact... There is right and then there is manipulative...

Sucks in my eyes that the children are just pawns in cases like this...!

If its reasonable or unreasonable, its maximum £20. Suck it up, be the bigger person and don't cause further resentment and rows over it. It may not be fair, but seriously, its £20 (max!)

babsand16

shoe*diva79 wrote: »

Im not sure what the problem is then? He pays 15% of his income towards the cost of raising his son, leaving him with 85% of his income. This is how it will be until his child is at least 18. If he is struggling to pay then he does need to look at his outgoings. He can post a SOA on the debt free wanna be board and they can help show him where he can make savings.

I think you're missing the point. This thread wasn't created to moan about the amount the father has to pay via the CSA, it was about the manipulation of the overnight stays by the mother to increase the CSA payments.
The father will pay what he is legally required to pay and he will make ends meet... he has too. The issue here is the mothers demands which end up costing the father more money... money that he is already sending her way to provide for the items she is refusing to put into his bag when he has overnight stays with the father.

babsand16

shoe*diva79 wrote: »

I its reasonable or unreasonable, its maximum £20. Suck it up, be the bigger person and don't cause further resentment and rows over it. It may not be fair, but seriously, its £20 (max!)

£20 is a lot when you have nothing! Its attitudes such as that which perpetuate the problem of mothers having so much control over the lives of the father. Willing fathers who are there for their child but the mother treats the situation as some sort of wind fall moment, or a constant hold over the father until the child is 20. It is not fair to deprive the child of a harmonious household for the sake of cheap games especially when the father is fulfilling his obligations financially to the child.