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

duchy

It is far more likely that one of the child's friends has started to get a clothing allowance in similar circumstances ...and the child is thinking....My Mum and Dad are seperated too so I'd like that as well. I wouldn't even occur to a child of that age that all divorces and financial arrangements aren't equal.

Or of course there is always the possibility that Dad is telling the child he does pay ... or at least letting them think they do assuming Mum won't want to make them look bad by correcting the wrong assumption.

In this situation (rather than in the situation of an earning father who simply won't pay...which is trickier) I think it'd be in order for Mum to explain that maintainance is calculated on what Dad earns and as Dad doesn't have a job -there's no money to be paid. Of course if the child decides to then ask Dad why he doesn't have a job as she's like a clothing allowance.....That'll be up to Dad to explain.

silvercar

In this situation (rather than in the situation of an earning father who simply won't pay...which is trickier) I think it'd be in order for Mum to explain that maintainance is calculated on what Dad earns and as Dad doesn't have a job -there's no money to be paid. Of course if the child decides to then ask Dad why he doesn't have a job as she's like a clothing allowance.....That'll be up to Dad to explain.

You've got to expect Dad to explain in a way that puts him in a good light. Like he stays at home to look after the new kids because new partner can earn more than him. Of course if older kids lived nearer he would happily pick them up from school etc but distance prevents it...

duchy

Indeed -but at least the child knows and can make up their own mind over time -instead of assuming something that isn't true.

mum2one

embob74 wrote: »

I don't actually understand why the ex is not paying maintenance? AFAIK household income is taken into account when assessing maintenance due. I assume the ex's partner works and that is the household income which should be assessed.
He should not forgo any financial responsibilities just because he had a few more sprogs - the previous children are still his responsibility.

Unfortunatly the new partner could be on an income of 3k a week (ok a bit extreme - but bear with me) in the eyes of the csa she is not responsible for any contribution to the children that the father already has......... so the father can become a stay at home dad, enjoy brand new cars, luxury holidays and not have to pay a penny for his children.

Mojisola

Edwardia wrote: »

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.

But the father now has four children - two that he's choosing to support and two that he isn't.

Say Janet and John had two children and then split up and the children stayed with Janet. Janet meets Mark and he moves in - his income and Janet's income gets spent on the new family, even though the children are John's.

John moves in with Mary. Mary is appalled that any of her income might go towards John's children. If John had been the parent with care, would she have made sure that all the bills were split 1:3 with John paying all his and children's bills?

Lieja

Mojisola wrote: »

But the father now has four children - two that he's choosing to support and two that he isn't.

Say Janet and John had two children and then split up and the children stayed with Janet. Janet meets Mark and he moves in - his income and Janet's income gets spent on the new family, even though the children are John's.

John moves in with Mary. Mary is appalled that any of her income might go towards John's children. If John had been the parent with care, would she have made sure that all the bills were split 1:3 with John paying all his and children's bills?

But if we're just talking financially then the father isn't supporting any of his children.

I don't think there's anything wrong with telling a child of this age that her dad doesn't pay maintenance because he doesn't have a job, but there's no need for it to be negative. I'm sure he supports all his children in non-financial ways.

Mojisola

Lieja wrote: »

But if we're just talking financially then the father isn't supporting any of his children.

Indirectly he is - by staying at home he is enabling his current partner to get back to work quickly and is saving them money on childcare.

I don't think there's anything wrong with telling a child of this age that her dad doesn't pay maintenance because he doesn't have a job, but there's no need for it to be negative. I'm sure he supports all his children in non-financial ways.

That doesn't put food on the table or pay for school uniforms!

GobbledyGook

hngrymummy wrote: »

I imagine the other side might go a little like this:

Please can I get some advice.
I'm no-longer with the mother of my eldest 2 children. My new partner and I have 2 young children. We looked at childcare costs and decided that I should be a SAHP as my wage barely covered it. I hope to be able to go back once the children are at school, although I'm worried that having a break will affect my job prospects. It's been a bit of a shock, as I didn't realise that being a SAHP was a full-time job.
I see my eldest children when I can, but the travel is expensive as I don't live near their Mum. Either I have to pay for two lots so I can bring them here, or if I stay there I have to pay for a day out.
The eldest has now started asking about maintenance payments. I didn't know what to say, so I took the easy way out told her to ask her mum, while I try and figure out the best way to put it.
I'm not earning, so I can't afford to see them and pay maintenance. I don't really want my new partner to have to work full-time during the day, then have to come home and look after the children while I work part-time. It seems a bit unfair on her. I'm not sure how much I'd end up paying in maintenance anyway, as CSA would take my youngest children into consideration.
I don't want my relationship with my children to be all about money, but I don't want them to think that I don't care just because I've chosen to stay at home with my youngest two. What do I tell her?

I'd imagine if he pointed out the other side someone would quickly ask why it's unfair for his new partner to be asked to work all day and then look after the children all night when his ex-wife is expected to work full-time, overtime and then look after the children.

Whilst I wouldn't be massively keen on using my income to fund someone else's child I'd be less keen on a relationship with a man who was happy to abandon any financial responsibility to his first children to SAHD to ours. I think it's sad when step-families are so split that all of the children are not given the same consideration.

Then again I'm odd. I don't think people should have more children they cannot afford. Even if that means waiting/not having children in a new relationship. If you have to withdraw all finances to children you already have then you can't afford another child. He wouldn't be having another child if it meant he didn't have a penny to spend on the one already living with him - I don't see the difference. According to someone I know (in a similar situation to the one in the OP) that makes me selfish, harsh and unrealistic so what do I know!

itsanne

Lieja wrote: »

But if we're just talking financially then the father isn't supporting any of his children.

I don't think there's anything wrong with telling a child of this age that her dad doesn't pay maintenance because he doesn't have a job, but there's no need for it to be negative. I'm sure he supports all his children in non-financial ways.

That's quite an assumption in my opinion.

He does what is best for his new children, contributes no maintenance to the first ones and moves 100 miles away. If he supports his first children in non-financial ways it's certainly not equal to the way he supports the new ones. His first children are getting decidedly short shrift.

Lieja

Mojisola wrote: »

That doesn't put food on the table or pay for school uniforms!

No of course not but it doesn't sound like they're starving or going to school in rags!

I'm another that thinks a new partner's income shouldn't necessarily be taken into account, although I do think that if a resident parent is struggling to look after the kids financially then the NRP should be doing something themselves to help out more, whether this means going back to work themselves or coming to an agreement with new partner about a contribution.

If my OH lost his job then I'd expect him to sort out an income so he could continue to support his child, and if we had a child together and he became a SAHD I'd be happy to contribute from my income as I would then consider it 'our' income.