Ever acceptable to not pay for kids?

jenhug

Even if he halved it he is still being very generous.

Did you get my PM?

shegirl

muchly wrote: »

£300 per month :-(

And he doesn't earn much and has them half the time?!Blimey!

I would suggest seeing if she'll accept him lowering it,given he has them so much (does he provide half of their costs btw?),to nearer csa levels BUT not only may she kick off but he's trying to support his kids which is what a parent should do.Unfortunately,you are struggling and he hasn't removed them from an unpleasant situation.

It's an awkward position to be in.But it's good that he's so willing

Funky_Bold_Ribena

Why did he decide to pay that, given that he doesn't have to? Until you know this, you aren't going to get very far.

Rottensocks

£300 quid a month? Wow! Even holding back a third of that is a good sized family shop for your household

HIgh morals, or fear of ex, or blend of both, I so think your husband is being hard on his second family to be paying so much over the bottom line when times are hard.

Rottensocks

Also, use the CSA calculator online: given the wages figures you supplied to us,and the fact he has two other kids, and the number of overnights, AND the court order, there is no way in hell they would say he should pay that much... Try it out, it may bring a sense of proportion to your husband to see what he should *really* be paying (although I'd advise against nagging on this subject too much!)

sulkisu

Rottensocks wrote: »

Also, use the CSA calculator online: given the wages figures you supplied to us,and the fact he has two other kids, and the number of overnights, AND the court order, there is no way in hell they would say he should pay that much... Try it out, it may bring a sense of proportion to your husband to see what he should *really* be paying (although I'd advise against nagging on this subject too much!)

I disagree - I think that she needs to 'nag' and nag hard. Unless there is more to the story, he shouldn't be paying maintenance - and certainly not that much, especially if it is to the detriment of his other children. The 'background' to the story (foreign holidays and tattoos) is largely irrelevant. I don't think the ex-wife is to blame - her husband needs to stand up to her and OP needs to stand up to her husband.

Lunar_Eclipse

sulkisu wrote: »

I disagree - I think that she needs to 'nag' and nag hard. Unless there is more to the story, he shouldn't be paying maintenance.

I agree, although I don't think 'nagging' is the way to go.

I would firstly point out that money, in the form of maintenance and any other material purchases do not have anything to do with love. So he isn't saying he doesn't care about his children (quite the opposite) if he stops paying!

Secondly, I would base my discussion around how he clearly wants to do the right thing for his children (all his children!) and whether that is currently being met via paying maintenance. If he could see that he would be a better father, in caring for all his children by stopping payments but taking care of their needs personally through buying more of their clothes & shoes etc personally, then I think he might come round to seeing things differently.

Approach it like you are trying to help him be the best parent he can be, instead of getting angry at him paying, and I think/hope he might agree with you.

harrys_nan

alias*alibi wrote: »

I do wish people would stop pedalling out this mantra. How many kids have slipped through the net exactly compared to the kids on an already overwhelmed caseload? Sure we are highlighted to the atrocities of 3 huge profile cases I can think of (Victoria Climbe, Baby P and now this poor polish lad) but I can assure you that social services are hugely overwhelmed, overworked and underpaid. So please stop stereotyping them! If you think you could do better then go get a social work degree and let's see how your fair. :mad:

Calm down I am allowed to express my views, just as you are,

Person_one

harrys_nan wrote: »

Calm down I am allowed to express my views, just as you are,

She's completely right. It happens every time there's a tragic high profile case. Everybody demands to know how how they could possibly have got it wrong, social workers are castigated for failing one child.

Come on here or a few other forums when there isn't a case like this fresh in people's memories and social workers/teachers/health visitors are being castigated for 'interfering' and being too quick to judge.

I've just heard someone on the radio suggesting that if teachers are concerned then children should be immediately removed from their homes while an investigation takes place. Can you imagine how people would react if that actually happened!

alias*alibi

harrys_nan wrote: »

Calm down I am allowed to express my views, just as you are,

Your 'opinion' was biased and oozed utter ignorance and contempt.