Is child maintenance for school expenses?

FBaby

There can't be one answer that fits for all because there are tens of different circumstances that mean the answer would rightly be different.

It would depend on the actual amount paid in maintenance, whether what is paid represent 50% of what the PWC pays or more or less, it would depend in the pwc claims CB/tax credits, depend if they are in a relationship, so expect the other partner to contribute also to the household bills etc....

Personally, I think the only fair way to look at it is by assessing how much the child cost (including non necessary items) and divide by two. If the amount in maintenance is close to 50% of what they cost, then I don't think it is right to expect more. If however it is less AND the pwc gets no help in tax credits, then I think it is morally ok to at least ask, but then if they are paying the percentage they are required to pay by the csa and they have another family to support, not much extra should be expected.

Seanymph

I struggle with the POV of many here - but will probably struggle to write it down.

It is used for whatever the Resident Parent needs it for. And that's the end of it.

As the resident parent my ex paid me maintenance, and we had many of these conversations once he had a new g/f.

However if he (and her for that matter) had paid childcare to enable him to work it would have cost him more than he was giving me to raise his kids 24/7 and when it suited him 52/1 (!) - I could have worked and earnt FAR more if I didn't have to be there before school, after school, every time they were poorly, whenever they were on school holidays.

He didn't make those sacrifices for OUR children, I did - I dropped wages, lost career, made myself available, had them whenever he 'wasn't available' with stuff all notice, made them available when he fancied playing Dad for the weekend.

I'd like to have seen him find someone else that would do all that AND pay the bills on his kids house, clothe them, provide them with holidays, give them life experience, put them first.

I get I was a parent - but my argument is so is he. for a paltry sum a week he got to take that as optional and for that I think he got a bargain! He got me to parent them alone and put them first for over 18 years.

He didn't get to decide what his money got spent on - he left me in the boat, I was paddling it, I decided what I'd spend it on - but to try and dictate that he only had to pay expenses that were directly attributable to the children and of no benefit to my family life with them he could jog on.

So maintenance is payment into the household that the children are living in by a parent who doesn't live in that household. And that's that. They get no say, involvement, or influence on how the Resident Parent apportions that money in my book.

And it's something I feel strongly about - does it show?

zzzLazyDaisy

Seanymph wrote: »

And it's something I feel strongly about - does it show?

Yes it does show, perhaps understandably. But in this case I think you are missing the point.

The NRP is already paying over and above what the CSA requires of him. OP (who is the resident parent) is free to use this money as she sees fit, and that is not in issue.

The reason she is asking what it is supposed to cover, is because she wishes to go back to the NRP and ask for more money based on the argument that there are some things (such as school trips and swimming lessons) which CSA/Child maintenance is not intended to cover, so the NRP should pay extra for these things. Depending on the relationship she has with her EX, he may or may not be willing to make an additional voluntary contribution towards these costs.

But I think you will agree that this is a far different scenario from your own experience.

pigpen

Seanymph wrote: »

I struggle with the POV of many here - but will probably struggle to write it down.

It is used for whatever the Resident Parent needs it for. And that's the end of it.

I think you have agreed with what most others have said.. summed up in the second sentence.

I do find it baffling that some NRP's have the idea that the payment they make may absolve them of any other responsibility as parent

Jinx

Seanymph wrote: »

He didn't get to decide what his money got spent on - he left me in the boat, I was paddling it, I decided what I'd spend it on - but to try and dictate that he only had to pay expenses that were directly attributable to the children and of no benefit to my family life with them he could jog on.

So maintenance is payment into the household that the children are living in by a parent who doesn't live in that household. And that's that. They get no say, involvement, or influence on how the Resident Parent apportions that money in my book.

And it's something I feel strongly about - does it show?

Agree wholeheartedly with this. Its something the threads have a lot of, the ex (usually husband but guess not always) wanting to dictate how the maintenance is spent and/or that it only goes on the child. But if the parent was resident the money would go on paying for the house, utilities and the children so it should be the same theory if its maintenance money.

I used the money as I saw fit. And I did get a few comments in earlier years about going out etc. Basically told him to take a hike - Ive always worked and his maintenance money was not funding my vodka intake (though it could have done, don't drink that much :beer:)

crazychaos

Yes he keeps a toothbrush lol I was just making a point. She has her own room here, clothes, shoes, school uniform as she's here three days a week and ever other weekend. And she has 5 weeks holiday a year with us. Not necessarily going away holidays but dad takes his responsibilities serious. We just wanted to make sure she still had mom and dad in her life even if mom is a bit psycho....

And believe me we have said no to things because both parents I believe should support the child financially and emotionally but I know this doesn't always happen.

iammumtoone

Seanymph - that is a way to view it I have never considered before, are you saying that exs are paying resident parents to be childcarers? Which in a way I am ex has a new gf and recently I have to be available to collect my son early as he is going out, visits have been cancelled as he was busy. I am not in a position to have a bf as I would not be able to get to know anyone as I am always with our son, the ex on the other hand can be seen as having the best of both worlds, he has time to meet and get to know a new women whilst still being able to be a father to his son (when it pleases him). HOWEVER I would certainly rather be me than him, I get to be with our son lots more than he does, no amount of money could buy that and given the choice I will happily stay single.

crazychaos

Seanymph I do agree with you as I brought my son up without the physical involvement of his dad (his dads choice) and felt that the money albeit a small amount was mine to do as I please to make sure my son was comfortable.

The situation with my partner is quite unique to me....a responsible father..... My opinions have changed but my experience is from both sides.

It's all about the kids in the end and thank god if they have one responsible parent looking out for them but all the better with two......:-)

justme111

Seanymph , being rp has its pluses and minuses. I hear you well , I been in the same boat. RP's are jealous of NRP's freedom , NRPs are jealous of a child siding with rp . Whenever you feel bitter to be stuck with a lion share of parental respinsibility ask yourself - would you rather be nrp ? In any case it had nothing to do with money, it sounds a bit harsh so apologies - you are barking at the wrong tree here.

JoW123

iammumtoone wrote: »

Seanymph - that is a way to view it I have never considered before, are you saying that exs are paying resident parents to be childcarers? Which in a way I am ex has a new gf and recently I have to be available to collect my son early as he is going out, visits have been cancelled as he was busy. I am not in a position to have a bf as I would not be able to get to know anyone as I am always with our son, the ex on the other hand can be seen as having the best of both worlds, he has time to meet and get to know a new women whilst still being able to be a father to his son (when it pleases him). HOWEVER I would certainly rather be me than him, I get to be with our son lots more than he does, no amount of money could buy that and given the choice I will happily stay single.

Completely agree with this x 100!! I am in exactly the same boat only with 2 children. My ex chooses how he wants to live whereas I am tied to the hours of my job because of the children and having a cat in hells hope of meeting anyone new. But I would still never swap places with him for the world...