My relationship is over.

DUTR

marisco wrote: »

I agree with you that just by adding extra financial support, this does not enable an NRP to provide all of the best things for their children. Spending quality time with them and reinforcing to them that you love and value them and are interested in their lives is just as, if not more, important.

Absolutely the NRP is not responsible for the PWC. If I were an NRP though I would take the initiative, communicate with the PWC and come to an agreement that we were both happy with about a decent level of support for the children, and what extras we would each provide. That is all part of being a responsible parent and behaving with integrity.

Indeed, remember though, sadly not all hold the same integrity as your fine self.
Some sadly do just see £££ signs and the child is only the other party when the child needs something financially. And in all honesty those that do stump up the extra (not all) do not get any thanks or feedback of appreciation. So there is no desire to stump up any extra (assuming they can afford it) .

Guest101

Gavin83 wrote: »

Why should the NRP pay the rent for the PWC, which seems to be what you are suggesting? Paying someones rent could take up a large part of your take home salary depending on your earnings. Rent shouldn't really come into it, if the PWC didn't have the child they'd still need to find the money for rent.

I agree with you in the sense that a NRP should pay what they can pay (while still remaining comfortable) but there are limits. Your salary example, if 15% was £225 that's quite a lot of money. I don't have children but I don't see how a child can cost that per month, excluding the costs you would have without the child anyway. I do however think CSA payments should be banded based on the childs age. For example, children under school age as a 20-25% minimum, primary school age 15% and senior school age 12%. This would basically reflect the PWC's ability to work themselves.

Regardless of all this, the NRP needs to have enough left after CSA payments to support themselves and potentially in the future another family. Therefore some common sense needs to be applied as to how much can be paid.

In the sense that a: you'd want your child raised in a nicer area than where the PWC could otherwise live & b: that the extra room taken by your child raises the rent, utilities, food etc. For which the NRP should pay half.

£225 for a child is not alot. That could esily be food, add in transport, uniforms, toys, etc

I'm basically saying that the NRP should support the child beyond simply paying 15%. Whether that is childcare, or gifts, or whatever. The 15% only covers living, any parent worth their weight would want more than simply living for their child

marisco_2

DUTR wrote: »

Indeed, remember though, sadly not all hold the same integrity as your fine self.
Some sadly do just see £££ signs and the child is only the other party when the child needs something financially. And in all honesty those that do stump up the extra (not all) do not get any thanks or feedback of appreciation. So there is no desire to stump up any extra (assuming they can afford it) .

You make some good points. Lets face it in any area of life if someone is trying to mess you around, and effectively take the p!ss out of you, your reaction will be less favourable than if you know you are being treated fairly and with respect. So it all comes down to a couple accepting that though they may not be together any more, they will always be linked by their children. I think the ones that make it work rise above petty games of trying to mess the other one around, choosing to focus solely on what is in the interests of their child. If more people would do this, then less children would suffer due to a family split.

neverdespairgirl

Gavin83 wrote: »

Your salary example, if 15% was £225 that's quite a lot of money. I don't have children but I don't see how a child can cost that per month, excluding the costs you would have without the child anyway.

Our son costs vastly more than that, per month! That's without taking into account the extra cost of a larger place to live in than we would otherwise have, larger utility bills, etc. You're out by more than a factor of 10.

Childcare - £2,000 / month
Schooling - £750 / month
Clothes - £30 / month
Activities - £50 / month

DUTR

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Our son costs vastly more than that, per month! That's without taking into account the extra cost of a larger place to live in than we would otherwise have, larger utility bills, etc. You're out by more than a factor of 10.

Childcare - £2,000 / month
Schooling - £750 / month
Clothes - £30 / month
Activities - £50 / month

Childcare and schooling?
Anyways at that figure for childcare, I think it's fair to assume you are working fulltime, as said every case is individual, and hence why Guest101's idea is not autmatically practical, and as Marisco points out, some do try and take liberties.
Also at those figures, could be assumed both parents are in the higher earning bracket?
As both would have their own incidental living expenses and many could lie on your listed outgoings above pay csa and still have a reasonable comfortable lifestyle.

neverdespairgirl

DUTR wrote: »

Childcare and schooling?
Anyways at that figure for childcare, I think it's fair to assume you are working fulltime, as said every case is individual, and hence why Guest101's idea is not autmatically practical, and as Marisco points out, some do try and take liberties.
Also at those figures, could be assumed both parents are in the higher earning bracket?
As both would have their own incidental living expenses and many could lie on your listed outgoings above pay csa and still have a reasonable comfortable lifestyle.

I don't understand your last sentence.

We both work full-time, and have a nanny - the nature of our work is such that a nursery or childminder wouldn't be flexible enough. That would be even more true if one of us was the parent only, because some of the time, we can cover for each other's absences at the moment, obviously.

My son's severely dyslexic, and needs a particular school environment.

DUTR

Guest101 wrote: »

In the sense that a: you'd want your child raised in a nicer area than where the PWC could otherwise live & b: that the extra room taken by your child raises the rent, utilities, food etc. For which the NRP should pay half.

£225 for a child is not alot. That could esily be food, add in transport, uniforms, toys, etc

I'm basically saying that the NRP should support the child beyond simply paying 15%. Whether that is childcare, or gifts, or whatever. The 15% only covers living, any parent worth their weight would want more than simply living for their child

Toys are not essential, just looking at my CC, £225 covers my month's petrol and grocery, I don't see many 1 bedroom properties about, the CS contribution takes into account many of the essential extra costs that may come about, Many people live in under occupied dwellings, however the running costs and energy bills for a 2 bed vs 3 bed is not that different.
Perhaps the last line is ambiguous, who wants to be just a slave for somebody else and not have any life of their own, offspring or not.

Gavin83

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Our son costs vastly more than that, per month! That's without taking into account the extra cost of a larger place to live in than we would otherwise have, larger utility bills, etc. You're out by more than a factor of 10.

Childcare - £2,000 / month
Schooling - £750 / month
Clothes - £30 / month
Activities - £50 / month

Honestly the first two aren't essential with schooling being a total luxury and the last two are inflated. I assume your a high earning family (with both parents working) with those figures and my figure was for a single member of the family earning slightly below/just at the average salary. The scenarios are completely different. I'm assuming 15% of your husbands salary would come to a lot more than £225!

Yours and Guest101's point about a bigger house being required is valid however. My point still stands that a NRP will need to use the bulk of their pay to fund their own life though which could potentially include a new family.

DUTR

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

I don't understand your last sentence.

We both work full-time, and have a nanny - the nature of our work is such that a nursery or childminder wouldn't be flexible enough. That would be even more true if one of us was the parent only, because some of the time, we can cover for each other's absences at the moment, obviously.

My son's severely dyslexic, and needs a particular school environment.

The last line should read lives, £3k a month net is above average salary and if not very close to the higher tax bracket those that earn it.

Lunar_Eclipse

Neverdespairgirl is simply showing how a child can cost considerably more than £225/month as a contrast to posters wondering how a child could possibly cost this much. It's not really about whether we agree with the child's 'expenses'; it's merely a statement of fact based on her reality.

Any decent parent will work hard to ensure parity exists in a child's life. It's not desirable for one parent to live on the breadline whilst the other lives a life of luxury, with a child moving between them. Hence why some will choose to pay more than 15% based on what they can afford. It is a sad fact that 15% of a very low wage is likely to be much more of a struggle than 15% of a very high salary.

The prize however surely goes to the separating parents who manage to keep their eye on the goal and not the war. Almost impossible I am sure.