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

Valli

Perhaps the place to start would be to explore why the oldest child thinks maintenance IS being paid. Then take it from there.
If it's just a general idea, perhaps from schoolfriends then mum can tell the child that not all NRPs pay maintenance; it depends on lots of things, and leave it at that, perhaps the daughter will draw her own conclusions.

I can see where she's coming from re the lying though; children don't understand the 'subtleties' of these things at that age. For example, when given 'treats' by NRPs they don't compare the value of them with the day-to-day expenses! It's a minefield!

Annisele

fabforty wrote: »

I think that (in my friend's head) there is an element of this to be fair to her. When they first separated and he was paying support, she was able to work fewer hours (6 hours a day so was able to fit round school easily) and no unsociable shifts, which made juggling single motherhood easier. Once the support stopped, she has had to work full-time, plus regular overtime and evening/weekend shifts (which means an increased shift allowance) to be able to keep things together. Her ex sees their children every week, but he has moved over 100 miles away, so is not around to help on a daily basis.

In that case, is it possible the 12 year old is confused about why there isn't more money coming into the house?

If they had a certain standard of living before, and then Mum starts working a whole bundle of extra hours, she might reasonably expect that Mum now has more money (rather than less) for clothing allowances etc.

Loz01

I think the 12 year old is old enough to know - it doesnt have to be told in an accusatory, slag-off way. Just merely state that no he doesnt pay maintenance so any money recieved for new clothes will be coming directly from their Mum. I dont think thats too much for a 12 year old to understand. I guess the only issue that could arise is that they could ask Dad why not when they see him. But maybe thats a good thing and will kick him into touch a bit! He should be paying something.

Person_one

fabforty wrote: »

ETA - I think(and this is just my opinion) that one of the reasons it grates so much, is that she misses out on a lot of quality time with the children because she has to work shifts and long hours. The oldest child is starting to resent it. She is working tonight, she worked Christmas Eve and Boxing Day and has had to miss school plays, sports days in the past as well.

So there have been a fair few changes in this 12 year old's life (without even including the new siblings!) and she's questioning and getting resentful, has she been offered any explanation at all?

Indie_Kid

If I was the mum, it would be something I'd discuss with dad first. Not to guilt trip him into paying CSA. Just so that if she asks dad instead.

victory

sh1305 wrote: »

If I was the mum, it would be something I'd discuss with dad first. Not to guilt trip him into paying CSA. Just so that if she asks dad instead.

Good answer, if dad is the non payer, dad has the guilt/ reasons, why he doesn't, so let him justify/ explain why

claire16c

Person_one wrote: »

If ex and his new wife were good people they would view his oldest children as a joint responsibility, and they would contribute from the household no matter who was earning the actual money.

I think 12/13 is old enough to deserve a bit of honesty and openness about family finances.

Exactly. It's pretty bad he's not contributing to his kids at all because he's chosen to look after his new family.

embob74

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.

barbiedoll

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.

I thought this too. When my friend lived with a guy who had children to support, her solicitor friend told her that if they married, her income would be taken into account when maintenance was calculated for his kids.

Mum should get Dad to explain why he doesn't pay maintenance!

19lottie82

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.

No, not household income. Only the sole income of the NRP