Child Maintenence

poppyscorner

I completely disagree with the above their new partners may well be able to support their new children alone and I think it is depriving a man of his human right to reproduce to say if he cant pay £50 a week per child he shouldn't have any more is ridiculous is the mother also contributing this amount i doubt it it doesn't cost me £200 a month for my two and if me and hubby split tomorrow I wouldn't want a penny I would expect him to have joint custody of them and also provide clothing but just to equal what I provide imho there are too many women out there who expect their ex to foot a bill which is way to high for their kids and whilst they are entitled to maintenance some women want them to pay for everything it should be equal and some women do it purely out of bitterness and spite have had it all over the years six years on my hubby has just about sorted it with ex but if she thought she could get an extra penny she would be there for it he also pays over and above what CSA have said and as hubby already knows what they would award he said do it and I will pay what they say did she do it, did she heck!
OP assess yourself by the maintenance calculator on the website reduce her maintainance if required when she threatens CSA let her do it my guess is she will be worse off and whilst she won't be happy tough luck don't listen to any criticism on here you are a dad who has done everything to maintain contact and support your son well done on that there are alot of losers out there who refuse to support their kids or make contact with them and thats sad I am sure your son knows you love him and as someone above said the cost of flights will almost certainly be taken into account in any calculations good luck with the new baby.

Poppy

Jet

Also I would just like to point out that the PWC has deprived this child of regular contact with his/her father. It seems that she is interested in the financial support for her child from the father but not the emotional support for him/her?

So if we are going to make judgements about the father wishing to pay less maintenance should we also not be making judgements about the mother depriving her child of the regular contact of her father?

Kimitatsu

Jet wrote: »

Also I would just like to point out that the PWC has deprived this child of regular contact with his/her father. It seems that she is interested in the financial support for her child from the father but not the emotional support for him/her?

So if we are going to make judgements about the father wishing to pay less maintenance should we also not be making judgements about the mother depriving her child of the regular contact of her father?

Yes but I would suggest that this is a seperate issue from maintenance. Maintenance and contact should not be linked but having said that it is a childs right to know both parents and to have a relationship if safe to do so with both of them.

Families and divorce is a minefield whichever way you look at it and I have yet to find anyone who feels they have walked away without scars. There are two sides to every story and no doubt each parent feels strongly as to the reasons behind their actions.

TheWaltons_3

nej wrote: »

I think this is very short-sighted. Do you know the situation?

If my wife left me and I fell in love with someone else and remarried, I would possibly want to have another baby. Should the new wife remain childless? This is not fair on her.

As I said before, my wife's ex got married and had 2 kids with his new wife. He now doesn't pay anything towards his daughter (my step-daughter). You know what? We don't care. He is happy, we are happy. None of us are bitter or twisted. And money doesn't get in the way. All we ask is that he take her shopping once a year for some clothes, which he usually does. He doesn't have tons of money, and we are capable of providing for her, so there is no problem.

It's mothers who try and stitch their ex's up for every penny, regardless of whether they need it or not because "it's his child", with no thought to his life that really annoy me.

Very well said... all this bitterness is no good for the child.

Congratulations to the Original Poster by the way... for your baby due in 3 weeks...

Your ex is being unreasonable.. I would halve the amount you are giving her and contact the CSA - you need to provide for your new baby too and things are going to be expensive with nappies etc

NRP can't keep being punished for getting on with their lives. This just isn't fair at all.

Lady_S

Kimberley wrote: »

If you are finding it hard to find the maintenance money for your child then yeah, fathers or mothers who pay maintenance shouldn't have more children until they are financially able to support the absent child and their new child, maybe thats how i should have said it in the first place.

I think you are being quite mean to people to be honest Kimberley. It would be the case if the two parents had another child together there would be less money to bring each of them up, so therefore why shouldn't maintenance payments reduce. It is also worth considering that if the PWC had another child they would only have the same amount of money to go around, so why can't the NRP have children?

The problem with the CSA is it isn't flexible enough, lets hope when the changes come in it is.

To the OP, could you consider getting a variation through the CSA anyway for the extended costs of access to your son, ie the plane flights. This might help you with your payments.

loftus

TheWaltons wrote: »

Very well said... all this bitterness is no good for the child.

Congratulations to the Original Poster by the way... for your baby due in 3 weeks...

Your ex is being unreasonable.. I would halve the amount you are giving her and contact the CSA - you need to provide for your new baby too and things are going to be expensive with nappies etc

NRP can't keep being punished for getting on with their lives. This just isn't fair at all.

The OP has been more than fair and responsible and is entitled to a reduction in what he pays because of his impending new addition (congratulations!)


However - and this is not aimed at the OP - this is not about punishing anyone for getting on with their lives. In getting on with your life you don't lose the responsibility for what has happened before and you don't stop supporting your other children - who are the innocent parties in any divorce.

liney

Definately go to the CSA. I believe the figure they will use for one child is 15%of net wages.

Incidently, why dont people think payments should be linked to access? I think it is reasonable that a father refusing to pay for the upkeep of his children not be entitled to access. Same token, a mother refusing access should not be entitled to a penny. Perhaps this would solve a lot of people access issues.

Children have a right to see both parents, but in my experience it is mothers preventing this in most of the cases. I dont think its fair they do this with one hand then hold the other one out for pound notes.

If the system was fair, the CSA payments would be reduced in this case as the father has to find cash to fly to another country if he wants to (and is allowed) to visit his child.

Smashing

The CSA Maintenance Calculator might give you a rough idea of the amount recommended.
It's also worth noting that the amount payable does decrease slightly if the NR parent has a new child in the family.

loftus

liney wrote: »

Definately go to the CSA. I believe the figure they will use for one child is 15%of net wages.

Incidently, why dont people think payments should be linked to access? I think it is reasonable that a father refusing to pay for the upkeep of his children not be entitled to access. Same token, a mother refusing access should not be entitled to a penny. Perhaps this would solve a lot of people access issues.

Children have a right to see both parents, but in my experience it is mothers preventing this in most of the cases. I dont think its fair they do this with one hand then hold the other one out for pound notes.

If the system was fair, the CSA payments would be reduced in this case as the father has to find cash to fly to another country if he wants to (and is allowed) to visit his child.

I can understand the logic in this argument but the problem I can see is that access is the child's right to see their parents - not the other way around.
Therefore you would be punishing the child for a dispute between the parents.
Likewise keeping a child poor to punish the resident parent punishes the innocent party as well.
Also I realise that in most cases mothers and fathers are obctacles in the way you describe - but not in every case so best to keep the issue gender neutral I suspect.

purplepatch

loftus wrote: »

However - and this is not aimed at the OP - this is not about punishing anyone for getting on with their lives. In getting on with your life you don't lose the responsibility for what has happened before and you don't stop supporting your other children - who are the innocent parties in any divorce.

I totally agree and I don't think anyone on here has suggested otherwise. It is just rather galling when the NRP responsibly pays without fail an amount that is based on the 15% formula (which in our situation financially stretches us each month and is more than we spend on either of our own 2 children) to be labelled as miserly and irresponsible for having 2 children of our own. I usually keep out of the child maintenance debate as it is clearly a highly emotive subject where people in the situation find it hard to see the other perspective, but this time I felt compelled to stick up for the NRPs.