Would you tell a child that NRP does not pay for them?

paulineb_2

FatVonD wrote: »

Yup, I knew I was on my own with this one!

My view is possibly coloured by having a dad who walked out of my life when I was four and didn't look back and then went on to have a new family with his second wife.

The money is secondary as far as I'm concerned although I do agree with the point that if you can't afford to support the kids you already have, you should think carefully about having more.

Its the fact that he doesn't see them either. He can afford to buy birthday and Christmas presents but not even give a couple of quid a week?

Anyone recall the recent thread on the boards where a man who had been paying for his daughter but never saw her, the second wife asked advice about when csa payments could stop and the advice overall was keep paying?

This father doesn't pay and doesn't see them either. When these kids grow up I wonder how much respect they'll have for him?

It wasn't my dad's money I cared about, it was the fact he had no time for me.
And this dad doesn't seem to have any time for his first set of kids.

FatVonD

paulineb wrote: »

Its the fact that he doesn't see them either.

I think he does see them though? You're doing the same as me and subconsciously colouring it by your own experiences!

This board is better than therapy sometimes

paulineb_2

I agreed with the point that before the new wife and he had plans for other kids that they should have sat down and worked out what would happen to the financial responsibilities the father had to his own kids.

This isn't about the new partner having to pay for these kids, its about the fact that kids aren't going to disappear in a puff of smoke when the father settles with someone else.

As someone else said, the father could easily work part time around his girlfriends shifts. He's just opted out of his responsibilities to his first set of kids.

Very convenient. And to be fair given that he has barely any contact with his first family, he could be working part time and they just don't know it.

POPPYOSCAR

FatVonD wrote: »

I think he does see them though? (You're doing the same as me and subconsciously colouring it buy your own experiences!

This board is better than therapy sometimes

Yes that was confusing me.

I could not find where it said he did not see them.

paulineb_2

Sorry, my mistake, I thought he didn't see them, he does.

POPPYOSCAR

paulineb wrote: »

I agreed with the point that before the new wife and he had plans for other kids that they should have sat down and worked out what would happen to the financial responsibilities the father had to his own kids.

This isn't about the new partner having to pay for these kids, its about the fact that kids aren't going to disappear in a puff of smoke when the father settles with someone else.

As someone else said, the father could easily work part time around his girlfriends shifts. He's just opted out of his responsibilities to his first set of kids.

Very convenient. And to be fair given that he has barely any contact with his first family, he could be working part time and they just don't know it.

Where does it say that?

paulineb_2

I've already said, my mistake.

January20

The child is 12 - so getting into teenage years very, not a little kid anymore - and she has asked for an allowance out of the maintenance she thinks her dad pays, so I think the mother has to be honest and tell her the truth. There is no maintenance.

I can't understand the number of people who seem to think it's ok for the mother to bear the whole of the financial burden of raising these two children because the father has a new family and is a stay at home dad! If he couldn't afford to support 2 families, he shouldn't have had 2 families!

I don't think he is a great dad. I think he took the easy way out. He could have carried on working and paid the maintenance, and perhaps him and his new family would not be so well-off at the moment, but financially, he would have supported his older 2 children. This way, he probably has more money and gets away with a few presents for birthdays and Christmas. Yep, a great dad! (sarcastically roll eyes)

paulineb_2

It puts the mum in a difficult situation as if the kid assumes he pays and he doesn't and she does see the dad, it might put him in a less than positive light.

I'd be honest without going into details and if the child does want to know why he doesn't contribute financially, he could surely answer her directly.

I think honesty is the best policy all round really.

paulineb_2

January20 wrote: »

The child is 12 - so getting into teenage years very, not a little kid anymore - and she has asked for an allowance out of the maintenance she thinks her dad pays, so I think the mother has to be honest and tell her the truth. There is no maintenance.

I can't understand the number of people who seem to think it's ok for the mother to bear the whole of the financial burden of raising these two children because the father has a new family and is a stay at home dad! If he couldn't afford to support 2 families, he shouldn't have had 2 families!

I don't think he is a great dad. I think he took the easy way out. He could have carried on working and paid the maintenance, and perhaps him and his new family would not be so well-off at the moment, but financially, he would have supported his older 2 children. This way, he probably has more money and gets away with a few presents for birthdays and Christmas. Yep, a great dad! (sarcastically roll eyes)

I think you've got that spot on. He had choices, his first set of kids are suffering financially due to choices he and the new partner have made.

You step up to the plate and support the ones you have before deciding to have another family.