child leaving college and csa

Marisco

clearingout wrote: »

does it not occur to you that for some people, there is little option? that if housing benefit and other benefits are reduced and the 'child' isn't able to make a contribution at a decent level to the household, there is no option but to downsize to one bedroom and ask the 'child' to leave?

I really don't understand why it is assumed by many that the PWC is 'happy' to have their children live with the NRP when the money stops. Is it not, for many, a practical consideration? My children are young but I can already see that I will have to be making decisions about my future sooner rather than later - and one of those considerations will be about having to get rid of a good-sized family house to be able to manage financially. That's even considering that I remain healthy and in full-time work. It just won't be financially viable. My children will have to make their own way in the world once they leave school - I won't be able to afford to keep a roof over their heads unless they are able to contribute. This is a sad fact of life and nothing at all to do with being 'happy' about things or about treating them as 'cash cows'.

Not sure what you're meaning here. Are you saying that an NRP should pay until the "child" decides to leave home???

13Kent

clearingout wrote: »

does it not occur to you that for some people, there is little option? that if housing benefit and other benefits are reduced and the 'child' isn't able to make a contribution at a decent level to the household, there is no option but to downsize to one bedroom and ask the 'child' to leave?

I really don't understand why it is assumed by many that the PWC is 'happy' to have their children live with the NRP when the money stops. Is it not, for many, a practical consideration? My children are young but I can already see that I will have to be making decisions about my future sooner rather than later - and one of those considerations will be about having to get rid of a good-sized family house to be able to manage financially. That's even considering that I remain healthy and in full-time work. It just won't be financially viable. My children will have to make their own way in the world once they leave school - I won't be able to afford to keep a roof over their heads unless they are able to contribute. This is a sad fact of life and nothing at all to do with being 'happy' about things or about treating them as 'cash cows'.

In the same way that many NRP's are left with little option but to have higher bills in order to maintain contact with their children, but they put up with the hardship for the sake of their children. Surely for the sake of the child most PWC's would put up with the hardship and extra expense in the same way that the NRP's have often had do year in year out, on top of paying the maintenance needed to support the children they are also having to pay the bills on a house big enough to accommodate children that visit maybe a few times a month, and to run a car that is reliable enough to maintain that contact.

clearingout

Marisco wrote: »

Not sure what you're meaning here. Are you saying that an NRP should pay until the "child" decides to leave home???

Not at all. I am reacting to the suggestion that 'it's all about the money for the greedy PWC'. There is more to it, I suspect, for many.

clearingout

13Kent wrote: »

In the same way that many NRP's are left with little option but to have higher bills in order to maintain contact with their children, but they put up with the hardship for the sake of their children. Surely for the sake of the child most PWC's would put up with the hardship and extra expense in the same way that the NRP's have often had do year in year out, on top of paying the maintenance needed to support the children they are also having to pay the bills on a house big enough to accommodate children that visit maybe a few times a month, and to run a car that is reliable enough to maintain that contact.

I'm sorry, I struggle to see this as a valid argument. I struggle, as a PWC. My retirement is going to be seriously compromised as a result of my divorce and my ex's refusal to pay fair with the financial responsibility of the children. I will more than likely lose my home as soon as my youngest child reaches adulthood (unless I have re-married for have a live-in partner). I have to maintain my home to keep my children, I have to maintain a car to fulfill my work responsibilities (and that includes getting the children into their childcare so I can work as well as keeping an eye on my now elderly mum who lives 5 miles away and doesn't drive herself) etc. etc. etc. Whilst I still receive child benefit, my tax credits have all but disappeared. Childcare costs me £140 a week minimum and I'm not earning huge amounts of money.

There is no more hardship for my ex than there is for me so your arguments hold no water with me - just as mine probably hold none with you. Trying to pit ourselves against each other and play the 'greedy ex' card continually ignores the fundamental that separated parenting costs both sides and there is a need to see it from the other person's point of view rather than gleefully announcing you no longer have to support the 'child' and ignoring the wider implications of that. My point is that my children will more than likely have to seek a home elsewhere in their late teens/early 20s if they are unable to contribute to my household (and there are a thousand reasons why that might not be possible). If they seek that home with their father that won't be because the benefits have run out and I'm no longer able to milk the cash cow or because I sat on benefits for 20 years and pretended it wasn't going to happen. It's because I simply don't have the money to keep them forever - had my ex and I remained together and continued on the path we were on, it is more than likely that we would have been able to give our children an extended stay in their family home until such a time as they were ready to leave. This is what I had and my ex had, and probably what many of you had. It is very, very painful to know that you won't be able to do the same for your own children and it is even more painful to know that someone out there will be name-calling and laughing behind my back as a result.

his_wife

crellow, older children?? my step daughter is 19 and a half, she has done three years at the same course, every year getting kicked off the course, she keeps reapply to college every year because her mother says she has too, her mother has also told her, once her benefits stop, my step daughter HAS to move out, as she will either foster, or rent her room out.

She will not loose housing benefit, she has her own home,

I am not saying we wont support my sd,, i am saying we will not support her mothers way of life, any longer!!! My step daughter has stated, she does not want to go to college,,, all her friends are working, she would like to do the same.

Do parents with care, not realise, that at some point, they WILL loose their benefits, csa, cb, wtc, ctc etc, and making their children go to college, to merely subsidy their income and lifestyles is not fair. Not on the child, nor the nrp.

As for who will support her when her benefit stops, she should support herself, my children had to, and will have too, why should she be any different to any other "19 year old child".

Just because her father has paid a substantial amount over the years, doesnt mean he should have to pay it forever. His elder daughter started work at 16 and put herself through college.

Why should my husband have to pay a large amount of csa for a child who is NOT in any form of education, just to keep her mum happy. She is old enough, to claim the dole, work part time/full time/juggle two part time jobs.

We have never said her father wont help her, however, in this life you get nothing for nothing!!!!

galangm8

I wish all of these NRPP's would stop wasting their lives, being bitter and going on about all the benefits a PWC 'gets', child tax credits, HB, council tax benefit and how the PWC has more income than my husband and she only works 16 hours per week...blah, blah, blah...

The most benefits for a healthy child is £82.00pw approx.

Who in there right mind would have the responsibility of a child for the next 18/19 years for £82.00pw, free school meals and a nasty council house?

If that's the sort of women YOUR partner is giving his children out to and now your complaining the PWC has more income than your partner earns and she only works 16 hrs....then that is your fault for taking on a man who earns peanuts, taking on a man who has baggage (his children to pay for) ~ all this you knew at the beginning when starting a relationship with him.

Instead of worrying about if child's at college/not at college, left home/at home, living with boyfriends, blah, blah, to stop paying CM...why not use all that time and energy and encourage your partner to focus on why the child has no motivation to attend college or look for a job, why is she living with boyfriends, etc., etc., maybe something to do with having no father around ~ for love, support, care, encouragement...if you feel that your own father does not want to love and provide for you, how worthless that can make you feel.

his_wife

love your post galangm8, i do wish you had read all my posts though, rather than just this one!!!!

My husband sees and has seen his daughter regularly since the day he and his ex split up, the reason that his daughter doesnt want to go to college, is that her mother has told her she has too, as it gives her more benefits in her income!!!! She has also told her once, daughter is no longer in education, she will be kicking her out!!!!

My husband , unfortunately/fortunately whichever way you look at it, does not earn peanuts.

His ex, gets a lot more than 82 a week for his daughter, ive seen how much she gets!

My initial post was never about how much , she does and doesnt get, but about the fact that my husband is paying cm for a child who is not in further education, so in my eyes, and the eyes of the law, receiving benefits which you are not entitled too, is fraud. So are you saying its right to commit fraud!!!!

You would be surprised how many people have had children purely for the benefits, it happens all the time. His ex, doesnt, by the way live in a nasty council house,,, I DO!!!!! The same one ive lived in for 18 years, yes i have now bought my nasty council house, but its my home!!

FBaby

My husband sees and has seen his daughter regularly since the day he and his ex split up, the reason that his daughter doesnt want to go to college, is that her mother has told her she has too, as it gives her more benefits in her income!!!! She has also told her once, daughter is no longer in education, she will be kicking her out!!!!

I have to say that I am really surprised about this statement. From what you've said about your step-daughter in the past, she seems to have a mind of her own and no afraid to be a selfish young adult. I somehow can't imagine this lady who says she really wants to work, clearly is wasting her time in college would agree to stay only because her mother tells her she has to keep her benefits, especially if her father has hinted that he would be prepared to help support her directly. Surely if she threatened to kick her out, she would be knocking on your door whinging about how nasty her mum is? The whole thing doesn't ring right to me (even if I don't doubt for a second that the mother is trying desperately to hang on the money).

his_wife

Just wrote reply and it won't send. F baby husband contacts his daughter daily whether they are speaking or not. Non speaking times are normally via ema or text.

I totally agree with you f baby about what you have said About sd unfortunately husband doesn't, he believes she is afraid of her mum!!!!

his_wife

just an update, sd has now reached the age of 20, and we have ceased paying csa. This is not to say my husband will no longer support her, however, he will no longer subsidise her mothers way of life.

We are still disputing with the csa, still sending daily "reminders" to cb, both still singing from the same bloody hymn sheet.

So basically, her mum has gotten away with fraud, legally. what a great system we have.