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

silvercar

clearingout wrote: »

I'm sorry, I'm not really sure I understand that?

If you set up as a family with a new partner who has children that are going to live with her - and therefore you, you have to accept that some of your earnings will be spent on housing and feeding her children.

It seems odd for someone to moan that their new partner has to support her children from a previous relationship because that is surely a given.

poet123

silvercar wrote: »

If you set up as a family with a new partner who has children that are going to live with her - and therefore you, you have to accept that some of your earnings will be spent on housing and feeding her children.

It seems odd for someone to moan that their new partner has to support her children from a previous relationship because that is surely a given.

I agree, but that should not absolve the absent parent from their responsibilities imo.

System

The oldest child has mentioned maintenance a few times in a way which clearly suggests that she believes it is being paid. E.g. she asked if she can get a clothes allowance out of her maintenance money. My friend has said nothing

Well whats up with telling her the truth but not going into the ins and outs?

If it was me I'd say 'Your Dad doesn't pay maintenance because he doesn't have a job.'

You don't have to go into the reasons why as its nothing to do with her.... just between the parents.

Mojisola

fabforty wrote: »

so he gave up work and became a SAHD. No income, no child support.

The oldest child has mentioned maintenance a few times in a way which clearly suggests that she believes it is being paid. E.g. she asked if she can get a clothes allowance out of her maintenance money. My friend has said nothing, but asked if I thought that she should tell her children (even just the older one) the truth.

Why on earth would she let her daughter go on thinking Dad pays CM when he doesn't?

charlieismydarling

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 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.

Pre 2003 the new partners income was only needed to ensure that the NPR was left with enough money to live on.

Nice attitude that you have there. It was not a case of the new wife's income being swiped to feed happy shopper food to his first family.

My Ex husband had children from a previous marriage and was in a low paid job. I earnt considerably more and topped up his csa payments to what I thought was a reasonable amount as well as buying extras. Fast forward twenty years and I can look my step children in the eyes and tell them that I did my best. They know what I did for them and despite being divorced from their late father we have an affectionate and supportive relationship.

If your DH treats his first children like !!!!, he will treat your children like !!!! and (hopefully) you.

My ds's father has paid not one red cent for him ever and denies his existence. I don't bad mouth him to my son. He knows I get nothing from his father. We have gone without all his life and I have never said a bad word against him. He is my sons father and I don't want my son to be hurt by his fathers selfishness and indifference.

Some things are about more than money after all.

Good luck OP.

claire16c

Edwardia wrote: »

Actually I had no idea that he had a daughter until several years after we were married and I had no idea and neither did he that during the time between when she left him and the divorce she went on to have three other kids with the man she left him for and gave them his name as father so they could get British citizenship :eek:

Even if I had known about her, no way would I give up my hard-earned income for another woman's children.

How can you not know someone you are married to has a child?

I don't think that can be true - I'm pretty sure the father has to go with the mother to register the birth in order to be on the certificate, or he has to be married to her. Otherwise women could put any old person down.

paulineb_2

Mojisola wrote: »

Why on earth would she let her daughter go on thinking Dad pays CM when he doesn't?

Because it might make him look bad, maybe she doesn't want to hurt her daughter.

Mojisola

paulineb wrote: »

Because it might make him look bad, maybe she doesn't want to hurt her daughter.

And she wouldn't be hurt by finding out later on that her mother had been lying to her for years?

paulineb_2

Its not a subject that a child always thinks of. I know I didn't. Was different for me as I didn't see my dad but I had no idea if he paid for me or not. I did kind of work out given that he had no interest in seeing me that he wasn't likely to be paying v much, but it never really crossed my mind. My mum and I spoke about it years later. She also never bad mouths him, I worked out the measure of him by myself.

Its a hard one, because this man does see his kids and the daughter might start to wonder why the dad isn't paying

What I mean is, at 8 or 9 years old is a kid going to ask does the mum get maintenance money from their dad?

Never crossed my mind. Its an issue now because the child thinks he's paying, when she was younger she mightn't have known what maintenance was.

As someone else said she's maybe heard it from a friend and assumes her dad does pay.

Now that she is asking I do think she should be told, but there may be fallout.

paulineb_2

His decisions have caused this entire matter, I think the mum has been put in a pretty tough position.

I actually think the father should be the person to tell the daughter why he isn't paying maintenance.