Bettering myself is better for my ex!

Alpine

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

How do you know? It could easily be spent on (for example) private education or tuition, violin lessons, ski-ing trips, etc

Because I only have to look at my own case and that of the OP to know that the excess is being spent on the PWC and/or their new family, not our children for whom it is supposed to be supporting.

shoe*diva79

What a lot of NRP forget as well, is that quite often the PWC takes time out of their career, often for several years, stalling their earning power beore the relationship breaks down? The NRP does not thus advancing at a much quicker rate. And then to top it off, when the relationship has broken down, the PWC finds them self having to work part time or if full time continually taking time off for appointments/sickness etc.

My personal opinion is that the NRP should pay a fixed % on their current income. If that fixed % happens to be £100 a week or example then fine. If the NRP feels hard done by that it doesn't cost £100 a Week to raise a child then maybe hey should consider how the PWC life has changed - cant just nip to the pub after work with everyone else as got to pick the kids up, taking unpaid time off work to look after sick kids (and once one has it, the others always follow suit!).

Being a single parent int easy, its bloody hard work. So yeah, what if I *shock horror* spend some money on ME - I flipping deserve it seeing as I'm to busy looking after JOINT children to earn the money myself.

Alpine

shoe*diva79 wrote: »

I flipping deserve it seeing as I'm to busy looking after JOINT children to earn the money myself.

If your children are holding you back like you make out, you could always let the children live with the NRP and pay them the CSA?

krashovrload

shoe*diva79 wrote: »

Being a single parent int easy, its bloody hard work. So yeah, what if I *shock horror* spend some money on ME - I flipping deserve it seeing as I'm to busy looking after JOINT children to earn the money myself.

++

I don't think anyone would argue with you on that. Obviously each situation is different. In the case of my ex-partner, she hasn't worked in over a decade and although she is now married - they seem to manage a lifestyle that is in excess of his modest income (Private Trust Funds not withstanding)...

She does have 3 children from previous relationships and 3 NRPs to deal with...

Now I'm not saying that she has ever lived a champagne lifestyle but if she can afford run the household, put food into and clothes onto the children, keep a menagrie of animals and still have money for Ipads, Kindles, Xboxes, laptops, PCs, flatscreen TVs, toys, dvds, CDs, Internet access, mobile phones as well as family holidays, higher education courses (that aren't funded) and run a family car - then I don't see why the CSA used to say that I wasn't entitled to the same...

But then on the plus side I have my health

++

little_miss_muppet_face

Alpine wrote: »

If your children are holding you back like you make out, you could always let the children live with the NRP and pay them the CSA?

I cant see where the pp said her kids where holding her back, she is just stating the point that most single parents have more than just themselves to think about, a father who takes his child once or twice a week doesnt have to worry about kids illnesses, doctors appt's etc, therefore usually the mother has to take this time of work (unpaid in my case).. the father does not.
The kids are joint kids therefore the father should also bare the brunt of this cost.

shoe*diva79

Alpine wrote: »

If your children are holding you back like you make out, you could always let the children live with the NRP and pay them the CSA?

Cant see where I said my children hold me back?

As their mother I do whatever I need to do for them on a day to day basis.

When I had my children I was in a relationship, didn't ever expect to be raising them on my own. If we had stayed together then the fact I had taken time out of my career to care for them wouldn't have mattered so much because my exes career/salary advancing would still have given us a comfortable life.

But instead he decided to leave us, spend minimal time with the kids and instead concentrate all his efforts on his career. Leaving me several years behind in the career stakes.

What actually makes me chuckle about your baiting statement, if that earlier this year during a contact order court case, I was actually pushing for him to see kids more. I wanted him to have overnight contact once a week so I could do career stuff. His career isn't any more important then mine! Something he wouldn't do!

So I suppose to answer you, the only way I can *really* get my career back on track without worrying about kids sick days, parents evenings etc is to put my kids in care, because sure as hell their father wouldn't take them!

shoe*diva79

little_miss_muppet_face wrote: »

I cant see where the pp said her kids where holding her back, she is just stating the point that most single parents have more than just themselves to think about, a father who takes his child once or twice a week doesnt have to worry about kids illnesses, doctors appt's etc, therefore usually the mother has to take this time of work (unpaid in my case).. the father does not.
The kids are joint kids therefore the father should also bare the brunt of this cost.

Thank you!

FBaby

Being a single parent int easy, its bloody hard work. So yeah, what if I *shock horror* spend some money on ME - I flipping deserve it seeing as I'm to busy looking after JOINT children to earn the money myself.

No one deserves to spend money on themseves just because they are looking after children, especially when that money is that earned by someone else. I find this concept utterly ridiculous. So what single parents look after their children almost solely, so do a lot of mothers who are in relationships because of various requirements. I didn't find being a single mum that much harder than it was when I was with my ex or now that I am with my partner, because in all three instances, I was the main carer to the children and doing most of the duties associated with bringing them up, it is just that that the reason was different when I was single (when with partners, it was because of their restrictions due to their jobs).

Sometimes I really feel that some pwcs are using their singlehood status as a reason to justify many choices.

What if the children would benefit from a nifty laptop or a comfortable sofa? Should the PWC refrain from using that computer or sitting down? Should subsequent children to the household be denied access to things that were bought with maintenance money?

A child who would care for a new sofa over a new outfit, activity, trip? Yeah right! The example of the laptop is simple, it is the child’s laptop, rather than the family laptop, however, that wouldn’t prevent him for lending it.

Of course it can’t be black or white. I can understand the position of the pwc who would have to explain why x gets to do 5 activities a week because his daddy pays for it, whilst they get to do nothing because her daddy contributes towards nothing, however a right balance should be found, and in that case, I think it would fair to accept a lower maintenance that would allow the nrp to do more with his kid when he is with him (which is what I am doing with my ex, except that the money saved goes on his family rather than our children L ). I personally can sympathise to some extent with the issue of equality between the children, but certainly not in the pwc being entitled to spend maintenance money because she has main residence of the child.

Mojisola

krashovrload wrote: »

In the case of my ex-partner, she hasn't worked in over a decade and although she is now married - they seem to manage a lifestyle that is in excess of his modest income (Private Trust Funds not withstanding)...

She does have 3 children from previous relationships and 3 NRPs to deal with...

Now I'm not saying that she has ever lived a champagne lifestyle but if she can afford run the household, put food into and clothes onto the children, keep a menagrie of animals and still have money for Ipads, Kindles, Xboxes, laptops, PCs, flatscreen TVs, toys, dvds, CDs, Internet access, mobile phones as well as family holidays, higher education courses (that aren't funded) and run a family car - then I don't see why the CSA used to say that I wasn't entitled to the same...

It must come as big financial shock to people like this when the CM and any children-related benefits stop.

FBaby

When I had my children I was in a relationship, didn't ever expect to be raising them on my own. If we had stayed together then the fact I had taken time out of my career to care for them wouldn't have mattered so much because my exes career/salary advancing would still have given us a comfortable life.

What was your career then that you forfeited because your ex husband insisted you become a stay at home mum? Were you out for so long whilst together than your chance to build on your career was gone for good? How can you be certain that you would have been earning well even if you had continued to work? And why aren't you taking any responsibility for the choice you made to stay at home? Surely your hubby didn't force you? You must have considered at some point the impact of your choice if you were to become single on day (surely you never thought this could never happen?)

So I suppose to answer you, the only way I can *really* get my career back on track without worrying about kids sick days, parents evenings etc is to put my kids in care, because sure as hell their father wouldn't take them!

Oh please! Many single parents work full-time with little support. I work with quite a number of them. It is tough, but far from impossible. Sick days, you manage, just take time off, parents evening, you go in the evenings, or again, you take the time off, or if god forbid, you really can’t go to a parent evening, you tell the teacher and make some time when you are able to. It’s amazing how resourceful you become when you have to.