Do we still need to pay?

mcewan07

My husband has recently learned that his son has now left school (16) and along with doing his part time work he is in a course ( to get his hygiene cert. along with a few others). This course started at the beginning of December and ends in January, it happens 3 days a week for those 8 weeks, where upon they can help you find an apprenticeship/job. Until January we are unsure wither he will get the other job or keep the one he has, it will depend on the times clashing between the two.

My question is does the 8 week course class as full time training? or can we stop paying csa to his mother. My husband will always support his son, but we would rather see him get the money than his mother.
We all stay in Scotland ( as i know their is a few small differences)

Any help you can give would be appreciated.

swingaloo

My husband will always support his son, but we would rather see him get the money than his mother.

Im always baffled by people who suggest this.

What is the son getting the money for? Is he going to pay it as board to his mother?

Or is the mother now expected to provide a roof, food etc, for him whilst his dad just provides him with spending money?

CSAworkerx

Is he being paid in his current job? How many hours a week is he doing this? Is the course at a college? Is his mother still claiming child benefit?

Answer these ill be more helpful.

mcewan07

Csa worker. Yes he is getting paid in his current job. His hours are variable, and he has gotten alot more over the Christmas period than his usual of around 16 hours.the course is not held in a college but a local centre to him, as for child benefit we so not know.

Singaloo, even although your post isn't helpfull at all I will answer you.
We feel it best to pay his son as already he is having to pay his own board (fair enough it's only £20 out his wages a week but when we give well over £350 a month we don't think this is fair) Along with having to buy his own clothes and his lunches. We know by giving him the money he will have to pay more in digs, this will help give him more life experience but also . Do not see his 1/8 share of bills and nighttime meals being 350+ pounds worth so hopefully he will see the money he works for stay in his pocket.

fabforty

mcewan07 wrote: »

Singaloo, even although your post isn't helpfull at all I will answer you.
We feel it best to pay his son as already he is having to pay his own board (fair enough it's only £20 out his wages a week but when we give well over £350 a month we don't think this is fair) Along with having to buy his own clothes and his lunches. We know by giving him the money he will have to pay more in digs, this will help give him more life experience but also . Do not see his 1/8 share of bills and nighttime meals being 350+ pounds worth so hopefully he will see the money he works for stay in his pocket.

Th risk is that unless your stepson is about to move out of his mothers home, all she needs to do is charge him more for his room and board (it doesn't have to be 1/8, it could be the whole £350) if she wants to. If he has his wages plus CM, she is unlikely to settle for £20 a week especially if she has come to rely on that money. I'm not saying this is right, just pointing out that he might not end up better off.

swingaloo

Child maintenance is just that. It is not called child spending money.

Children don't become cheaper to house just because they get older. The responsibility to keep a roof over a child's head changes when they can support themselves, until then both parents should be responsible.

And its not about what you feel is fair, its about responsibility.

mcewan07

Im not saying it should be "child spending money". But you expect the money you give to go on the child for what he needs.As it is we pay all that to her for his son then to come to us and say he needs new shoes and cant afford to buy then as he has gave her digs, buy his lunches, and travel for work and his course and cant afford to get shoes as he doesn't have a lot of money coming in from his job and she says its up to him to buy his own.

That is the risk fab forty. Hubby going to speak to his son when he comes up at new year as we have found out that since we are in Scotland we don't need to pay her, but can pay him direct (as he is over 12) even if we owe money or not -not sure if it still applies with all these rule changes but leaving hubby to look into that. But as you said it can cause more problems so we will see what they decide to do.

Bluemeanie_2

swingaloo wrote: »

Child maintenance is just that. It is not called child spending money.

Children don't become cheaper to house just because they get older. The responsibility to keep a roof over a child's head changes when they can support themselves, until then both parents should be responsible.

And its not about what you feel is fair, its about responsibility.

Yes but in this situation, it doesn't sound like the maintenance is being used to maintain the child. If your getting £350 a month for one child and then charging him another £20 a week board I think you are the one evading your responsibility of providing for your kid! Not the NRP in this case. Your post is completely pointless and raises no valid points whatsoever!

swingaloo

Bluemeanie wrote: »

Yes but in this situation, it doesn't sound like the maintenance is being used to maintain the child.

And you know that how?


If your getting £350 a month for one child and then charging him another £20 a week board I think you are the one evading your responsibility of providing for your kid! Not the NRP in this case.

I take it you are aware of the financial incomings and outgoings of both parents then!


Your post is completely pointless and raises no valid points whatsoever!

Exactly what was the point of your post?