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

FBaby

This thread is just depressing me Why is it that parents, whether nrps or pwcs are constantly defended for not supporting their children? Whether it is the pwc who solely relies on benefits because she doesn't think she should have to work to support her children, or the nrp who moves on and considers that with the move goes his responsibility, over and over, some posters not only seem to think it is acceptable but even defendable.

I really really don't get it. I was brought up to be responsible for the choice I've made. Having children were the most responsible acts I engaged in. I would LOVE to seriously cut down on my hours and if it wasn't for the children, my husband and I could afford it. However, I have children, I am responsible for them, so until they are grown up and able to support themselves, I will continue to do what I need to do to support them. This is why I didn't think twice about telling my children that their father didn't pay maintenance when I thought they were at an age to understand. Not so that he would pay for it with their relationship (thankfully it had no negative affect on it at all), but because I too want them to learn about being responsible for all the choices they make.

GobbledyGook

FBaby wrote: »

This thread is just depressing me Why is it that parents, whether nrps or pwcs are constantly defended for not supporting their children? Whether it is the pwc who solely relies on benefits because she doesn't think she should have to work to support her children, or the nrp who moves on and considers that with the move goes his responsibility, over and over, some posters not only seem to think it is acceptable but even defendable.

I really really don't get it. I was brought up to be responsible for the choice I've made. Having children were the most responsible acts I engaged in. I would LOVE to seriously cut down on my hours and if it wasn't for the children, my husband and I could afford it. However, I have children, I am responsible for them, so until they are grown up and able to support themselves, I will continue to do what I need to do to support them. This is why I didn't think twice about telling my children that their father didn't pay maintenance when I thought they were at an age to understand. Not so that he would pay for it with their relationship (thankfully it had no negative affect on it at all), but because I too want them to learn about being responsible for all the choices they make.

I find the whole "parent has the right to move on with their life" train of thought very depressing. To an extent they do, but imo when you choose to have children you have to accept that for at least 18 years your wants should (imo have to) come second.

I just don't see how the rights of Dad and his new partner trump those of the children he has already chosen to have. People would get outraged if someone gets rid of their dog because they couldn't afford the dog and the cute new puppy they wanted, but it's alright to abandon financial responsibility to your children because your new partner wants kids of her own?


There's also a bizarre split over how to treat children with regards to discussions as well. People bemoan the entitlement culture children have and their lack of any money sense. Yet at the same time it's seen as wrong to include children in any discussion about the household finances.

I don't understand how people expect children to learn about the cost of things or to tailor their expectations to the family budget if they are never part of it.

My brother and I were aware of our grandparents income. We knew that they had roughly X coming in and that they had roughly Y going out. Therefore we knew that as a family we had Z left over so whilst we might want to do A, B and C we knew we could only afford one. I think the fact that I grew up knowing how much we had as a family is one of the reasons I'm relatively good with money now.

silvercar

I just don't see how the rights of Dad and his new partner trump those of the children he has already chosen to have. People would get outraged if someone gets rid of their dog because they couldn't afford the dog and the cute new puppy they wanted, but it's alright to abandon financial responsibility to your children because your new partner wants kids of her own?

That's the balance question. On the other side does the father's new partner have to give up her right to have children? Remember that she is happy to go out to work to provide for her children. Or are you saying that she can't have children?

GobbledyGook

silvercar wrote: »

That's the balance question. On the other side does the father's new partner have to give up her right to have children? Remember that she is happy to go out to work to provide for her children. Or are you saying that she can't have children?

I didn't say she couldn't have children. Imo she's not the issue really - he is.

She can have children, they can have children if they wish, but they should need to account for the fact that between them they have/will have four children that they have a financial responsibility to - not simply the two children they have as a couple.

It's the abdication of responsibility that is very wrong. He can't afford to give up work and they can only afford it (imo) if the responsibility he bears towards his children is classed as a household expense of their family unit.

If the mortgage on their house was in his name only they wouldn't stop paying it on the basis that it was his responsibility and now he's a SAHD...

seven-day-weekend

Just to make my position clear.

I DO think the Father should pay for the children.

I also think that the children should be involved in household spending decisions once they are old enough.

However in this case, I don't think it is necessary for the girl to know her father does not pay anything because that is between the mother and father and the only thing that will happen from the girl knowing is that it may cause her to have resentment against her father. The fact that I think this is a bad thing is for HER sake, not his.

This does not mean that the children can't be told that something is unaffordable, nor thsat they can't be involved in financial decisions.

nw_mum

Oakie wrote: »

Can the mother just say something on the lines....'Every penny that comes into the house is spent keeping the family housed,warm and well fed.And that mum is working hard to provide some nice treats as well''
That way the daughter will understand why mum works hard and money needs to be spent on the essentials as well as the nice treats.
It also lets dad 'off the hook' until the kids are older and more understanding.

Perhaps the father could start contributing , then he wouldn't need to be let off the hook
:cool:

Person_one

This seems somewhat at odds with your aggressively pro-honesty in other threads though SDW.

venetianlagoon

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Just to make my position clear.

I DO think the Father should pay for the children.

I also think that the children should be involved in household spending decisions once they are old enough.

However in this case, I don't think it is necessary for the girl to know her father does not pay anything because that is between the mother and father and the only thing that will happen from the girl knowing is that it may cause her to have resentment against her father. The fact that I think this is a bad thing is for HER sake, not his.

This does not mean that the children can't be told that something is unaffordable, nor thsat they can't be involved in financial decisions.

Would you lie in response to the question though or try to avoid giving a straight answer?

I wouldn't, I think it would be very unwise.

FBaby

She had the choice to expect her partner to go to work. She had the choice to be the one going to work and provide for his children. She of course had the choice not to go out with a man who had children. How many more choices should she be entitled to?

GobbledyGook

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Just to make my position clear.

I DO think the Father should pay for the children.

I also think that the children should be involved in household spending decisions once they are old enough.

However in this case, I don't think it is necessary for the girl to know her father does not pay anything because that is between the mother and father and the only thing that will happen from the girl knowing is that it may cause her to have resentment against her father. The fact that I think this is a bad thing is for HER sake, not his.

This does not mean that the children can't be told that something is unaffordable, nor thsat they can't be involved in financial decisions.

However in this case the child has asked for a clothing allowance specifically from the maintenance.

So to not give her resentment towards her father her mother has to simply say no risking the resentment going towards her mother.

How is that right or fair or good for the girl?