Company director playing the system

shoe*diva79

Carl31 wrote: »

I dont know what % of earnings my wifes ex pays, i just think the amount he pays is a fair contribution based on the basic cost of the childrens needs, i would only expect him to pay 50% of their food and living costs, i certainly wouldnt expect any 'profit'

Why should a NRP only pay 50% of the basic cost of a child? Are you saying that those children from separated families are not entitled to have that little bit extra from life unless only the PWC provides it? No going to friends birthday parties or holidays or day trips out unless the PWC can afford 100% of the cost.

If basic costs are only food and living costs then there are a lot of naked children walking around for starters. Have you any idea how much a decent pair of school shoes cost?

Average 30 kids in a class, get invited to 15 of those birthday parties throughout the year spending no more then a tenner on a present/card for each friend?

Roof over head, food, clothing, heat, water, school uniform (my daughters jumper is £60 alone!!!) and on and on the list could go.

It sounds like your 2 step children are lucky to have you as a step father who will also be contributing towards their living costs.

FBaby

You're stuck in a vicious circle. You feel resentful that he has a great financial life when you and daughter struggles. He considers that he provides a decent amount for one child (and indeed he does), in addition to what you are able to claim in benefits because of your daughter.

You consider that what he contributes should be the equivalent of 15% of what he earns, he considers that he should contribute enough for your daughter to have a decent life, but that he should be in control of the rest. In a way, I think this is fair enough. Does she not benefit of his wealth when she sees him? Maybe he is putting money aside for her, but money that he wants to control himself?

To be honest, a lot of your posts comes across as bitterness and jealousy of what his new family has. I can totally understand PWC wanting to fight when the nrp earns decent money yet they receive nothing at all, but it is not your case.

For info, my ex doesn't pay a penny for our two children. All goes to his toddler and two step-daughters. I even pay for their return train fare for them to go and see him. I have given up trying to get something out of him. If I got over £400 a month for both of them, I would be over the moon.

sfm82

Is the real issue here the fact you think he's not paying enough or he's not paying on time?

mania112

AnnieB61 wrote: »

B's dad is paying £111 per week for her through the CSA

That is more than Jobseekers, that is more than Child Benefit (and a combo of both)

I fail to see why this isn't enough if its more than the State are giving you.

You're being blinded by the fact he earns so much more (and flaunting it). There are people on much less than you.

AnnieB61

shoe*diva79 wrote: »

Why should a NRP only pay 50% of the basic cost of a child? Are you saying that those children from separated families are not entitled to have that little bit extra from life unless only the PWC provides it? No going to friends birthday parties or holidays or day trips out unless the PWC can afford 100% of the cost.

shoe*diva - you put it far better than I did!

Fbaby - he stopped bothering to see B (or her brothers, most of the time) when he met his new partner. When he did arrange to see them he was invariably very late or did not turn up at all. On the few occasions he DID actually manage to see them, their pre-arranged plans were often changed at the last minute to whatever his new missus wanted to do, and they have managed to see him on his own only 2 or 3 times in the last couple of years. In total they have probably only seen him 5 or 6 times a year since our divorce. B only saw him a couple of times last year - he told her brothers it was because he "didn't like the fact that she wouldn't lie when he asked her to".

sfm82 - the most pressing problem is that he never pays on time, and recently has started paying odd amounts too. But yes, it also really bugs me that he thinks that rules and laws just do not apply to him, and that if he disagrees with what the CSA might say he should pay, then he will simply lie to get his own way. He was a cruel and narcissistic husband and father, and I hate the way he treats our children.

mania112 - I am fully aware it is more than my ESA per week. And I don't dispute there are people with far less than me - but then just about anyone could find people worse off than themselves, and that is no excuse whatsoever for B's dad to behave as he does

Fbaby - to be quite honest, I really don't care if I come across as bitter. I asked for answers to specific questions, not for opinions as to whether what he pays is reasonable or not! (I had half a mind not to answer that in the first place, to avoid getting side-tracked!) B has special needs, and if I don't look out for her, who will? Certainly not her father. And no, he most certainly won't be putting money aside for her that we don't know about! When all three children were born I opened savings accounts for them and put in what little I could for several years - yet was coerced into letting my ex withdraw it for 'short-term business purposes', promising that he would soon repay it. He never did, of course :mad:

Carl31

shoe*diva79 wrote: »

Why should a NRP only pay 50% of the basic cost of a child? Are you saying that those children from separated families are not entitled to have that little bit extra from life unless only the PWC provides it? No going to friends birthday parties or holidays or day trips out unless the PWC can afford 100% of the cost.

If basic costs are only food and living costs then there are a lot of naked children walking around for starters. Have you any idea how much a decent pair of school shoes cost?

Average 30 kids in a class, get invited to 15 of those birthday parties throughout the year spending no more then a tenner on a present/card for each friend?

Roof over head, food, clothing, heat, water, school uniform (my daughters jumper is £60 alone!!!) and on and on the list could go.

It sounds like your 2 step children are lucky to have you as a step father who will also be contributing towards their living costs.

i think what should and shouldn't be paid by either parent is entirely a different conversation, but a child needs a base level of care, of which 50% should be covered by both parents.

What happens outside of that base level of care, so food, clothes and shelter, is up to the parents of that child. Some parents might believe their children should be entitled to the world on a plate for whatever reasoning, doesn't mean they deserve it, or it should be paid for.

In our house are my 2 step daughters, my wife and i, and our own child. I also have a son who doesn't live with me 100% of the time, but does very regularly, I am fully aware of how much children cost, hence i know over £100 a week for one child is more than adequate. I pay my sons mother for one child more than we receive from my step daughters father via the CSA through a non CSA arrangement, but using the CSA guidelines. Anything that i choose to do with my son outside of that arrangement financially is my decision

If anybody is upset that their NRP is not contrubting enough, then surely discussions should be taking place amicably

AnnieB61

Carl31 wrote: »

If anybody is upset that their NRP is not contrubting enough, then surely discussions should be taking place amicably

This is a large part of our problem, really. B's dad will not talk to any of the kids about anything other than 'safe' topics like the weather and what his next plans are for his new house / stables / barns / land / holidays etc. It is all about him. But then much of the time he won't talk about anything at all, as he is seldom 'allowed' to be alone with any of his children these days.

To be fair, when we split up, despite being a 'functional' alcoholic, he would always make time for the kids (and even me!), and we got on really well - I suppose we usually only saw him when he was sober. But he definitely wasn't mean with his money then - either to them or me. And we all met up quite amicably, usually at least once a week.

But when he met his new partner, he more or less cut all contact with his own children, and could only 'fit them in' for an hour or so once a month (or less), if he happened to be in the area. I think the worst example was when he told them he would meet them in a city around 40 miles from here, and take them shopping: the only proviso was that they had to meet him there (despite the fact he was driving within a mile of where we live). So I gave them money for the bus and train, and they happily spent around 90 minutes travelling to see him (local transport isn't up to much! lol!) When they finally met up with them, he greeted them with "hurry up - we've just about got time for lunch as I only have about at 45-minute time-slot"! Turns out that he was there with his gf and her daughter and was trying to meet his kids while they were busy doing something else as he didn't want them to know! She has driven an enormous wedge between him and his kids, and hates him seeing them alone or giving them any money

So he won't discuss anything with me or them. B and I have tried mediation a couple of times, but he refuses to attend. Perhaps he is too scared! lol! The boys say that he seems very unhappy as he is now - totally 'under the thumb' and with no time to himself and seemingly no say whatsoever when it comes to his own money!

I just wish it was like the old days - when he was so keen to see them that we took turns at the weekend, and they often also saw him during the week too (we only lived about 5 miles apart then - it's around 30 now). When he met her they were never allowed over if she was there - and the rest of the time he spent at her house anyway.

He's a fool. They will no doubt be around for far longer than she is - but any respect they ever had for him is long gone. He won't even answer the phone to them most of the time these days (he works with her, too!) - and no, it's not because they are always asking for money (they seldom do!). It's all very sad - and stupid!