Is it wrong to use Children's savings...

Any

srcandas wrote: »

FA I fully see your moral position but to say people have no sympathy for the children is totally wrong.

If we look at this in purely financial terms your argument stands up but if you consider what other things (love, time, security, the economy and stability of the family) the children will need over the many years before they are independent it is not.

The family unit will need to be united and only the mother can take sensible decisions. If by not taking this action the mother offers a poorer quality of life for her children then how can that be justified.

We cannot of course comment on specifics in this case as we do not have all the facts (and some of the assumptions posted will certainly be incorrect). However in general I would say that the well being of the family unit is the most important thing.

Yes of course the mother should consult the granparents but at the end of the day she is responsible for her family.

I guess I'm back to where I came in - tying money up in restricted accounts in the current volatile world amounts to lunacy IMHO

Well I am sorry, but I seriously doubt the shortage of some £ in the monthly budget will barely be noticeable by children. We are not talking about life and death here, love and care is NOT measured by money.
I say some £ because what the parent is proposing to pay off the loan early, which will most likely see 2-3 months interest applied anyway and then she will have to build their savings up again..And hopefully pay them some lost interest too.
(unless the financial incompetence is not going as far as actually holding the money in absolutely no interest earning account).
I would like to see the savings this is actually going to make. We are not talking about savings of £190 a month.

And if the inheritance was bequeathed directly to the children, ie made in the will to their name, this is quite simply illegal and no court in the world will see your position.
Whatever you think about whether inheritance should be made to second generation and your view that this is tying money in for years that can be used better, the law allows to do it and for anyone else taking the money is simply theft.

srcandas

Any wrote: »

And if the inheritance was bequeathed directly to the children, ie made in the will to their name, this is quite simply illegal and no court in the world will see your position.
Whatever you think about whether inheritance should be made to second generation and your view that this is tying money in for years that can be used better, the law allows to do it and for anyone else taking the money is simply theft.

Any I try not to be too specific as we do not know the details. However we have been told only a very small part of this money is an inheritance. Ambers family are not dead and all she has said is that she has not discussed it with them yet as she wants to resolve her dilemma first.

You say the interest amounts to little but the repayments amount to a lot more than just interest. We are talking cashflow during a difficult time. Amber is in the process of splitting from her partner.

And as she is splitting up I expect the transition is why she needs greater flexibility financially (especially if child support is not resolved - which is indeed an assumption on my part ).

The judgements on her financial abilities posted by others seem a little unfair as I imagine her partner had some and possibly lots of input into the process up until now.

As for the law I think you will find it is very foggy here at best. The money has been given under what conditions? To be used as and when by the parents for the children's well being? Specifically allocated as private school fees between ages 15 and 17? To spend as the child desires? Who knows?

While I don't advocate breaking the law, in our civilised society we often see the law interpreted for the greater good. I have no problem with commonsense being applied where appropriate.

Clearly this is not a simple case of parents raiding the children's piggy bank to buy a take away on Friday night. For that reason I will give the benefit of the doubt.

But each to their own :beer:

amberspyglass

This is clearly a very emotive issue and you all have definite views on this! I truly wasn't looking for everyone to to agree with me and I didn't come onto this public forum with my mind made up only thanking those in favour of using the savings.

I am still in two minds and if I'm really honest with myself I'm not comfortable with the idea of using their savings and I think it's unlikely I will. I really appreciate all your comments for and against, thanks to you all :):)

whiteside

Not an easy choice however due to the circumstances then I don't really see an issue with using the monies in your kids accounts to pay off the loan and at least get that worry off your back.

If you are anything like us then often money given to our weans for birthdays/Christmas etc to buy toys/clothes is just put into their account with us then buying the toys etc from our own money.

If this money helps get you back on your feet financially then surely that is good for the kids in the long run also. People can be very quick to judge about morals etc but in the end YOU are responsible for the kids and your own well being.

Perhaps as others suggested have a word with your mum as with her support it sounds like it would put your mind at rest. Good luck anyway and if you do use the money then don't beat yourself up about it. Life is too short.

As a side note, it is interesting some have brought up the whole issue about having sizeable sums of money in kids accounts at all. Stories of kids going wild and using money in their accounts for drink,drugs etc are quite common now. It has occurred to me that maybe we should be using our kids savings more freely to actually buy things for them rather than trying to amount a cash pot that may or may not benefit them in the long run.

Porcupine

If you are going to do it, I'd set it up as a legal agreement. That is, sign a contract that you promise to repay the sum of £X per month plus interest of, say, 5%, total loan to be repaid over Y months. Make sure the rest of the family are happy with that, and make yourself responsible to them if you fail to repay.

That means the kids benefit by getting an interest rate they couldn't get in the bank, and you save by not paying credit card rates. And if you have to explain yourself to Uncle Fred who used to be a policeman if you default, makes not repaying a scarier prospect.

JohnRo

FatherAbraham wrote: »

It's morally monstrous, what is being proposed and advocated on this board by people who seem to have no sympathy or feelings for the children.

That's quite honestly a ridiculous position, the exact opposite is the case. These aren't college kids at the point of leaving home and starting new independent lives.

You need to climb down off that high horse before you do yourself an injury.

FatherAbraham

JohnRo wrote: »

That's quite honestly a ridiculous position, the exact opposite is the case. These aren't college kids at the point of leaving home and starting new independent lives.

You need to climb down off that high horse before you do yourself an injury.

But you should be careful not to advocate doing things which are illegal, sir!

Furthermore, if a young child loses a £1500 nest egg, it is quite possible that the financial consequences of this will be felt throughout its entire life.

Warmest regards,
FA

JohnRo

No dispute there, I agree completely, the huge assumptions you appear to be making, amongst others, is that either of those scenarios apply here.

What the kids need more than anything in their lives, given the less than ideal situation that has to be faced and a solution found, is a financially stable, confident parent.

I don't think anyone in here knows enough to be confident it's the right thing either way, that's something OP has to decide and live with.

loracan1

JohnRo wrote: »

I don't think anyone in here knows enough to be confident it's the right thing either way, that's something OP has to decide and live with.

Apart from srcandas who appears to be gifted with second sight.

srcandas wrote: »

Amber don't worry and do what is best for your family (which includes your kids). You are a team, one for all and all for one.

If your kids where adults they'd beg you to use the money.

srcandas

loracan1 wrote: »

Apart from srcandas who appears to be gifted with second sight.

Can you give quotes from my posts where I have said £1500 will not impact the children's lives and where I have said Amber should do something illegal?

Possibly you have me confused with someone else or have missunderstood?