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

CRANKY40

pinkshoes wrote: »

He's not valuing his second children over his first! He is a stay at home parent because his partner earns far more than him - it's LOGICAL.

Why does no one bat an eyelid when the woman is the lowest earner and thus stays at home???

Perhaps the mum can suggest that he does more of the childcare, as if he's already a SAHD? He could have them stay with him 50% of the time perhaps?

This simple debate has been blown way out of proportion.

If he and his partner both worked than they would both pay towards childcare costs which would leave him disposable income which could be taken into account for maintenance. The actual situation of him staying at home would only be logical if he had no other children to support other than the ones that live with him.

Either sex lower earner would be welcome to stay at home and do childcare if they were not depriving children from previous relationships of maintenance.

In this case, the SAHD lives 100 miles away from the family that he does not pay maintenance to. Not sure how this is supposed to pan out when you suggest him taking on more childcare?

As for being blown out of proportion....well I used to work for the CSA and you'd be surprised how many parents of BOTH genders advised me that they couldn't pay maintenance to the children from prior relationships as it would adversely affect their "new" family. You have no idea how I have come to hate the expression "new family". It makes me want to cry for the "old family" who nobody gives a damn about any more.

Long_tall_sally

I agree that I think this lady's ex is definitely putting the welfare of his new child / children first before the welfare of his older children. Even if it is for financial reasons (which to be honest I doubt as surely he would earn more than he would have to pay out in child care?) he could as others have said, work evenings or something to help support his older children. What would happen if their Mum just decided to give up work because it suited her to do something else?
My ex hasn't paid any maintenance for 8 years because he gave up a job to do a history degree and hasn't had a job since. My partner on the other hand still pays maintenance willingly for his son who is 19 & in a low paid job because as he says he would still be supporting him if he still lived with him so why not now? I couldn't respect anybody who thought otherwise tbh.

poet123

If you have one set of children their upkeep should come before having a second set if that would mean you cease to pay for the first set. Their maintenance should have been factored in when the decision to have more, give up work was made.

It is what adults do; cover their financial bases before taking on further outgoings.

Brighton_belle

pinkshoes wrote: »

He's not valuing his second children over his first! He is a stay at home parent because his partner earns far more than him - it's LOGICAL.

proportion.

It is logical that he stays at home:absolutely. But in which case, her earnings become joint family income, out of which they need to set aside money for his elest children.
Just because she earns it doesn't make it all hers hers to dole out as she sees fit surely? Wouldn't it be both their income as a new family?

Person_one

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

The Op stated that the children are not affected financially because the mother earns a good salary.

I think this is more of a moral issue than a financial one.

I'm pretty sure the OP said that the mother is having to work longer and more unsociable hours to make up the shortfall, and that the children are feeling resentful about the lost time with her.

Sounds to me like they've all been quite substantially affected, even if the bills are all getting paid.

Shelldean

Rev wrote: »

I've not read the whole thread so apologies if I'm repeating.

Personally. I'd be honest. My father was never around. No birthday or Christmas cards etc but he always paid maintenance until I turned 16.

My mother was always honest with me about the situation but never bad mouthed him. Just states facts.

People seem to assume thy being honest with a child means bad mouthing the other patent but that's not the case.

My friend has a son who's father plays the doting dad but does zero. Never sees him, no maintenance. Always an excuse as to why there's no Christmas present or birthday present. She's honest with him. But never bad mouths the father. Just a simple 'no mate, your dad hasn't sent anything'. If she is asked. Or 'no Hun, no money from your dad this month'.

Why lie to the child?

this ^^^


I never lied to DD about the fact her father paid zilch for her, totally refused to pay me maintenance as he felt that if he did I would be getting paid twice( all because I was with a new partner who contributed to the housekeeping pot) Never could work ex's logic out.
I was all for going down the CSA route but OH said nope, we'll cope. And we did always kinda manage.
always managed to be civil in front of DD about her father.


Ex did always say he was putting her 'maintenance' into a saving account, so I was quite happy to go along with that method tbh.


Just after DD 18th birthday he handed over her maintenance savings.... She was hoping to do driving lesson and get a car etc. The grand sum in the saving was £157 not even £10 per year of her life. I could've cried.


But it opened her eyes to the real person her father is, And as a result as I no longer need to be civil about him... as nothing I can say will be as bad as she'd say LOL

The only loser in this situation is her father, but he's made his bed he can dam well lie on it!!!!!!!




But never lie as you can be sure it will be found out and will bite you just when you least expect it

Edwardia

I'm posting from the perspective of a second wife here.

When I met OH for very first time he wasn't divorced but his wife was living in USA with man she left him for. Some years later he managed to get a divorce, we met again and moved in together five months later.

If CSA had been involved (they weren't) under pre 2003 CSA rules MY income would have been included as household income, and used to determine how much OH would have to pay in maintenance !!! I would have moved out, no way would I let my income go on someone else's child.(I've still never met his daughter actually).

As the oldest child OP mentions is 12 she predates the rule change, so if OP got CSA involved, under pre 2003 rules, her ex's new partner's income WOULD be assessed. That's why the OP's ex is a SAHD. CSA can't touch him, whereas if he was working, CSA could clobber him for backdated maintenance and take his partner's income into account for oldest child.

After 2003 CSA new rules state the new partner's income is disregarded so likely that would be case for OP's younger child.

So yes it does look like OP's ex is being clever and avoiding his maintenance responsibilities.

As a second wife however, I have to point out that the new partner/wife is NOT always responsible for the marriage/partnership breakdown, that she might never have even met her partner/husband's previous wife/partner.

That she might never have met his child/ren also and yet if they were born pre 2003, she would have her income assessed with his, to determine how much maintenance those children got.

There's no legal stipulation on the kids' mother to spend maintenance purely on the children either. She could blow it on Jimmy Choos and feed the kids on Happy Shopper baked beans quite legally.

It may not be the case that the OP's ex who wants to deprive his older kids of anything. It may be that his new partner doesn't want her income swiped to support his kids, especially as she has two of her own.

poet123

Edwardia wrote: »

I'm posting from the perspective of a second wife here.

When I met OH for very first time he wasn't divorced but his wife was living in USA with man she left him for. Some years later he managed to get a divorce, we met again and moved in together five months later.

If CSA had been involved (they weren't) under pre 2003 CSA rules MY income would have been included as household income, and used to determine how much OH would have to pay in maintenance !!! I would have moved out, no way would I let my income go on someone else's child.(I've still never met his daughter actually).

As the oldest child OP mentions is 12 she predates the rule change, so if OP got CSA involved, under pre 2003 rules, her ex's new partner's income WOULD be assessed. That's why the OP's ex is a SAHD. CSA can't touch him, whereas if he was working, CSA could clobber him for backdated maintenance and take his partner's income into account for oldest child.

After 2003 CSA new rules state the new partner's income is disregarded so likely that would be case for OP's younger child.

So yes it does look like OP's ex is being clever and avoiding his maintenance responsibilities.

As a second wife however, I have to point out that partner/wife is NOT always responsible for the marriage/partnership breakdown, that she might never have even met her partner/husband's previous wife/partner.

That she might never have met his child/ren also and yet if they were born pre 2003, she would have her income assessed with his, to determine how much maintenance those children got.

There's no legal stipulation on the kids' mother to spend maintenance purely on the children either. She could blow it on Jimmy Choos and feed the kids on Happy Shopper baked beans quite legally.

It may not be the case that the OP's ex who wants to deprive his older kids of anything. It may be that his new partner doesn't want her income swiped to support his kids, especially as she has two of her own.

It isn't relevant if the new wife meets the child or if they were responsible for the marriage breakdown, or they have their own children together. If you create children you have a responsibility to support them before creating more, or entering into a relationship with someone who cannot see that.

Person_one

You'd think these fathers were keeping their children secret from their new wives until after the wedding.

You knew what you were getting into, if you don't want responsibility for a partner's child, don't date dads!

Edwardia

Sorry have to disagree. Having YOUR income assessed by CSA to support another woman's children merely because you moved in with the man you love is not fair.

The previous kids are the joint responsibility of him and the mother of the children, not in any way the legal responsibility of the new partner.

Pre 2003 that wasn't recognised by the CSA.