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

Seanymph

The daughter should be responded to honestly and with no bitterness because her father has turned his back to the extent he has, his 'new' partner seems to hold no responsibility towards his chidren, and they live with their mother.

Consequently she needs to be able to TRUST her mother, they need to have a secure and honest and open relationship.

To have that as she grows up it is VITAL that her mother does not lie to her - not openly and not by omission.

It also teaches her an appalling lesson if her mother lies to 'let her dad off the hook' or 'cover up for his decisions'. Because she loses her dad to his 'new' family and loses her mother because the mother has prioritised the dad not the daughter.

Betraying your child's confidence by lying to them in order to cover your ex who CHOOSES not to support them financially is a whole can of worms.

The mother has, bless her, decided to tell the daughter - and all power to her for that.

The daughter needs NEEDS her mum and her to have a good relationship - the dad is a selfish plank and will continue to be so.

Why on earth should she destroy her own relationship with her child to cover his !!!!?

A simple 'we don't get maintenance, he doesn't have a job' is sufficient.

So there's your reason - and I'll add.

'Family' isn't just the people who live in your house - they are the children you have fathered or borne - and your partners children, whether they are yours or not.

These children are children of the family just as his youngest are - and BOTH adults in that house should be looking out for all three children.

The mother in this case is awesome for being so tolerant and supporting her children first - I see being honest with her daughter as her supporting her child's realisation of the situation as it really is, and a constructive and vital tool in teaching her daughter that her mum will be honest with her and prioritise her always.

Errata

A simple 'we don't get maintenance, he doesn't have a job' is sufficient.

Not necessarily if that statment is followed by "Why hasn't he got a job?".

Seanymph

But errata she can just say 'you'd better ask him'.

It's not for the mum to comment on her exes household or choices - just to be honest with the daughter about their household.

DUTR

GobbledyGook wrote: »

It's not about bragging rights at all.

The girl has asked a specific question - Can she have some of the maintenance money for clothing.

The fact that the mother took any time at all to formulate a reply shows it's far from simply a chance to bad mouth the father.

It's about the best way to explain to a girl that despite her mother working more hours there isn't any money. It's understandable if she knows there was maintenance plus now Mum is working more.

If you read through you'll see that many people suggested explaining to the girl in ways that doesn't paint the Dad badly deliberately - just gets the point across rather than just giving the girl a blanket no (and therefore implying there is maintenance money there.)

Thanks for the logical reply, the only 'twist' is that even if CS contributions were being paid, it doesn't mean that the extra purchases would be possible and would still require explanation, hence why I don't see the point in telling.



Example, I do pay CS contributions and could give more should I choose, I don't think stabling horses and then wanting an additional £3k holidays were what the contributions were intended for.

If something cannot be afforded then it cannot be afforded, like many I wanted a Raleigh Chopper, my parents simply could not afford it, however I have grown to learn you cannot have everything and the things that you do want strive to achieve yourself, not blame somebody else in whatever way you want to blame them.

marisco_2

There may be far more background to all this than we have been made privy to. When the mum and dad split he may have walked away from the property they had and not taken his share, in lieu of paying maintenance payments long term. This may be the reason that maintenance was only paid for a couple of years, till the youngest child was old enough to start school and the mum could work full time. Also why he feels at ease about giving up work to be around for his new young family, whilst not financially supporting his older children any longer.

lostinrates

marisco wrote: »

There may be far more background to all this than we have been made privy to. When the mum and dad split he may have walked away from the property they had and not taken his share, in lieu of paying maintenance payments long term. This may be the reason that maintenance was only paid for a couple of years, till the youngest child was old enough to start school and the mum could work full time. Also why he feels at ease about giving up work to be around for his new young family, whilst not financially supporting his older children any longer.

True,

I would see this as a good context for the truth to be balanced in the explanation. It would, for example,in your scenario help explain to the daughter why things were tight, that a house run on two incomes when things were cheaper is now run on one income while prices keep rising, but its to everyone's benefit in the longterm, because they get the stability of staying in their home now that dad is a sahp. nothing negative, nothing biased. I should imagine a lot of tongue biting.

GobbledyGook

DUTR wrote: »

Thanks for the logical reply, the only 'twist' is that even if CS contributions were being paid, it doesn't mean that the extra purchases would be possible and would still require explanation, hence why I don't see the point in telling.



Example, I do pay CS contributions and could give more should I choose, I don't think stabling horses and then wanting an additional £3k holidays were what the contributions were intended for.

If something cannot be afforded then it cannot be afforded, like many I wanted a Raleigh Chopper, my parents simply could not afford it, however I have grown to learn you cannot have everything and the things that you do want strive to achieve yourself, not blame somebody else in whatever way you want to blame them.

Granted it doesn't. However in this case we're talking about a child who is old enough to make the seemingly logical thought that "Mum is working extra hours so we should have more money". There should be an explanation, imo, that whilst Mum is working more there isn't actually any more money coming into the house. It doesn't necessarily have to mean that Dad gets painted as the bad guy - the news is full of people that don't have a job at the moment.

We all grow to learn things. This is a 12 year old who has asked a specific question and, imo, deserves a truthful answer.

We all have our different opinions on CS. My OH fathered a child whilst we were split, but now we are back together to me the maintenance he pays towards her is a household expense to be accounted for just like any other. She is part of our family unit financially (she's too young to be here much so far). He probably will pay for stabling horses if she ever asks for it, but that's because he does for our girls already and to him, and me, the child shouldn't have a poorer quality of life simply because of her parents not being together (and why he paid for that over and above CS when we were divorced as he/we believed the children's quality of life shouldn't suffer unnecessarily).

shop-to-drop

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

It's quite difficult isn't it? I can see what everyone is saying and no way would I lie to her, but I would also hate to be the one who made her think less of her dad. What a nasty situation to be in.

It wouldn't be the mother making her think less of her dad, it would be the dad, it is 100% down to him, his choice to give up work and stop paying. Therefore he is the one showing his daughter how little he actually cares.

IMO it is a dangerous game to play with a pre teen hiding the truth if she finds out later, perhaps mid teens her relationship with both mum and dad will be at risk of being damaged.

supersaver2

DUTR wrote: »

It seems your post here is to just get an increase in your thanks count, people can ask questions as this very thread is about, if you don't have the intelligence to answer then that is fine, thankfully somebody else has applied some logic to it

That's you told! Interesting that there are other posters here that are far from impartial but its only a problem if you have a different view point to the majority!

I wonder if all the posters on this thread will be off to the benefits board and tell any parents that survive on handouts and don't support their children financially that they are selfish and bad parents? Its no different, plenty don't support their own children for a variety of reasons.

mumps

I don't understand why people are referring to the mother lying to the girl, I don't see why an adult has to justify to a 12 year old child why she can or can't afford to give her a clothing allowance.

I have seen children of close friends who have "not been lied to" by the resident parent, I remember advising one RP not to say anything negative about her ex but she assured me it was nothing untrue and important for child to know, daddy prefers to spend his money on booze, daddy isn't working again etc. Her kids are well screwed up, got to mid teens and rebelled against her, defended dad to the hilt and when that went wrong the kids really struggled..

I know it is hard to bite your tongue but I would and I would just tell her that there isn't any spare money at the moment or if I could afford the allowance I would give it to her.