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

duchy

silvercar wrote: »

We try to bring up our children not to be materialistic, to teach them that money isn't everything, to not make judgments on what people earn. That teaching and social work are as valued professions as solicitors and bankers and then we hint that Dad is a loser because he doesn't contribute financially to the house?

Walking on tight ropes.

Or maybe we just hope to raise our children to take responsibility for their own actions regardless of what profession they choose. In this case people probably do feel Dad is treating his later children better than his earlier ones-Does that make him a loser ?

Being materialistic and taking financial responsibility are not the same concept.

silvercar

Person_one wrote: »

What would you say?

You are too young for a clothes allowance.

Person_one

mumps, there are times when full and frank disclosure is a bad idea and not good for anybody. However, there are also times when a child deserves honesty and to be 'in the loop'.

I have to agree with errata in that I don't really see the relevance of bringing up completely unrelated scenarios.

DUTR

Person_one wrote: »

Not at all, he's contributing an awful lot to his second family despite not working. Nobody looking at that unit in isolation would say he was a loser.

All he's contributing to his first family is a few hours a week though, is that really enough? Especially considering the sacrifices and adjustments his ex and first two children are having to make to compensate?

Yes it is enough, he has other commitments, what if he was living on the streets? ( I know he isn't) your comments seem to read that the ex has no right to move on with life just as the OP can / did, like you say in one family's eyes he is a loser, in the other he is a star, and sadly that is the way it will always be.

Person_one

silvercar wrote: »

You are too young for a clothes allowance.

So you'd let her keep believing that maintenance was being paid, you'd let her keep building up resentment about the extra hours mum's working and the fact that she's missed birthdays and other special occasions?

Pollycat

mumps wrote: »

I don't think anyone has said that a NRP shouldn't pay and that wasn't the question the OP asked.

You've taken my post out of context.

I was reply specifically to sevendayweekend about this comment:

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Part of being a parent is protecting them from such stuff.

mumps

Errata wrote: »

Mumps, in all fairness I don't think comparing how parents behave when their child has what may be a life threatening tumour to a dad not providing for his offspring makes any kind of point.

But the justification for telling this child her father is not paying maintenance is that we have to be honest, the child will blame us later if we "lie" etc etc etc By the standards of people in this thread I certainly lied by omission and I have no regrets. Any qualms I have about lying are nothing compared to the health, physical and mental, of my children.

I have mentioned a friend's children, she felt it was right that she was honest with them about dad. I can honestly say those child were damaged by the honesty, she recognised that too late. Was the father at fault for being a lazy no good? He certainly was. Did the mother compound that by being honest with her children? I think so and so does she. Who suffered in the end? The children.

mummyroysof3

I'm now in my 30s but my parents separated when I was about 9. When I was secondary school age I was aware that my dad payed maintenance as well as us staying with him the majority of the school holidays. I think if my mum led me to believe she was getting money from dad but said I couldn't have any money for clothes I would be annoyed with her. I would rather her have told me the truth either way though.

OP only your friend can know how her child would deal with the information given to her but I think it's about making sure the child is happy and if dad gets some uncomfortable questions asked then that's for him to deal with as he made that decision.

Mojisola

silvercar wrote: »

We try to bring up our children not to be materialistic, to teach them that money isn't everything, to not make judgments on what people earn. That teaching and social work are as valued professions as solicitors and bankers and then we hint that Dad is a loser because he doesn't contribute financially to the house?

I don't think he is a loser because he isn't earning and I don't think that's the thinking of the majority of responders.

Adults make choices and take responsibility for the effect of their choices. This man has chosen not to financially support two of his children when he could easily do so by working a few hours a week himself or using part of the household income.

I honestly can't see how it's his ex's job to protect him by lying to their children. A simple answer like "Your Dad doesn't pay any maintenance" and a direction to talk to him if she wants to know more would be sufficient.

mumps

Person_one wrote: »

mumps, there are times when full and frank disclosure is a bad idea and not good for anybody. However, there are also times when a child deserves honesty and to be 'in the loop'.

I have to agree with errata in that I don't really see the relevance of bringing up completely unrelated scenarios.

Well that is your right but I don't see that it is unrelated, it is about appropriate information being given to a child not using the excuse that you have to be completely honest, answer every part of every question or you are a liar.