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

Pollycat

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I just don't think children need know ALL the gory details of the truth. You tell them the truth about what they need to know. In this case, unless a direct question is asked, I don't think she needs to know that her father has chosen his other two children over her, nor that he made a conscious decision to give up work when he knew it meant he would not be able to pay for her.

What gory details?

The OP made it very clear that this child believes her Dad is paying maintenance.

fabforty wrote: »

The oldest child has mentioned maintenance a few times in a way which clearly suggests that she believes it is being paid. E.g. she asked if she can get a clothes allowance out of her maintenance money. My friend has said nothing, but asked if I thought that she should tell her children (even just the older one) the truth.

Doesn't this child need to know that her Dad is not paying any maintenance?

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Just 'there is no clothing allowance' should suffice unless she specifically asks 'does dad pay for me' when she can be told, no, he doesn't because he does not have a job and that if she needs further information to ask him.

No, that should not suffice at all.
'There is no maintenance being paid from your Dad'.
That is true.

Again, the OP clearly states that the child believes maintenance is being paid.

Pollycat

silvercar wrote: »

I disagree, the main point is that the child wants a clothes allowance. There is a secondary point that the child thinks she has some entitlement to the maintenance provided by the Dad. we know there isn't any at the moment, but if there was, it is not for the child to think they have an entitlement to it at the age of 12. Maintenance goes tot he pwc to provide for the child, not to the child.

And I disagree with you.

I think you need to read the original post.

fabforty wrote: »

My friend earns a reasonable salary, so the children are not affected as she is able to pay the mortgage, bills etc, from her salary alone, but the fact that he pays nothing really grates. The oldest child has mentioned maintenance a few times in a way which clearly suggests that she believes it is being paid. E.g. she asked if she can get a clothes allowance out of her maintenance money. My friend has said nothing, but asked if I thought that she should tell her children (even just the older one) the truth.

You will see that the child has mentioned maintenance a few times.

The 'wanting a clothing allowance' was just one example (the 'E.g. is a clue) that has come out of the child's belief that her Dad is paying maintenance.

So the main point is that the child believes that her Dad is paying maintenance.
The secondary point is that the child would like to have some of that money for a clothing allowance.

marisco_2

DUTR wrote: »

Just like many of you here once a child and asking for something perhaps that was expensive, the answer returned was NO, there didn't need to be any explanation from any parent for them to have to justify their answer NO. Does it make you think any less of the parents? NO.

From memory I think parents and other adults in the extended family were far more confidant and self assured about saying 'NO' years ago. I work as a teacher and when I hear a parent now say a firm but fair 'NO' I want to applaud them. For some reason many seem unable to do this and all they ultimately achieve is to raise a child where nothing is ever going to be enough. At some point whether in their personal or professional lives these young people are going to be turned down. The younger they learn to hear this without needing justification the better.

My parents had absolutely no problem saying 'NO' to me on a regular basis. Come to think of it neither did my grandparents. Sure at times it grated as it would with a kid who has their heart set on something. I didn't lose respect for them though and it taught me about boundaries and realistic expectations. I also knew deep down how fair they were to me on the whole. I saw how hard they both worked and appreciated all the nice things we did do as a family. A lot of the time that was doing activities that didn't cost a huge amount. Interestingly one of the things I rarely had to ask for or was ever turned down over was having my parents time and attention.

Mojisola

duchy wrote: »

So you assume that most families in poverty can be directly attributed to drinking, gambling or drug taking-Good grief what planet do you live on ??????

As for my parents- and what they said - despite being poor they were always entirely respectful of each other and worked as a team

This describes my parents, too. They worked very hard but didn't earn a lot and we, their children, were well aware of the family finances - not the absolute details but in general terms.

We knew that if something got broken, they couldn't just replace it so we looked after possessions. We knew that, when we went out, we usually did things that were free and always took our own picnic food because they couldn't afford to go into a cafe. We knew that we didn't get the same kind of presents at Christmas and for birthdays that some of our friends got.

I don't think knowing that our family finances were limited did me any harm - quite the opposite, in fact.

Once they know the boundaries - whether financial or house rules or general behaviour - children are far more secure.

fabforty

DUTR wrote: »

Indeed poor girl, and not for the reasons waffled on about in the thread.
Many of you have grown up in a usual family of Dad/Mum siblings perhaps, somebody was probably working perhaps even both parents.
Why I find it odd is that there even needs to be any explanation to any child, clothes allowance pocket money or anything else is a privilage not a right, and sorry it is not to troll but trying to blame the other parent is just the cowards way of avoiding saying NO, you cannot have everything you want all of the time, or even some of the time is not possible.
There can be people from family units where one parent drinks or gambles the majority of the houshold income and still there is nothing left for treats.
Just like many of you here once a child and asking for something perhaps that was expensive, the answer returned was NO, there didn't need to be any explanation from any parent for them to have to justify their answer NO. Does it make you think any less of the parents? NO.
I understand some of you may wish to spoil your children and in the wrong way of spoiling them (all be it slightly spoilt) .
I wonder if the thread is really about wanting to tactfully justfy a negative answer?

Not at all, and this is where reading the posts properly (or even reading them full stop) becomes useful.


First of all, I started the thread, not the mother in question so 'no' she couldn't have started it to justify giving a negative answer. And before you accuse me of the same, my advice to her was that she should not say anything. However in starting the thread, I thought that other people's views and experiences might be helpful to her.


As she herself explained in a subsequent post, and I explained in the opening post, she has said nothing to her daughters about not receiving any money from her ex, mainly because the subject had never come up. If she was the cowardly mother hellbent on slating her ex, she would have been shouting it from the rooftops years ago. She hasn't. You will have seen from subsequent posts that she doesn't say her ex is a bad man - they clearly have a civil relationship despite the lack of child support.
However, now the subject of child maintenance has been raised by the daughter on more than one occasion. I stated in my opening post her daughter has mentioned child maintenance on a few occasions recently, the clothing allowance was given as one example - so 'no' the clothing allowance is not 'clearly the main issue' (I can't remember who said that, I'm afraid)

I just wanted to clear that up.

Thank you once again to everyone that has posted. My friend has made a decision, as posted previously and as we seem to be going off into a tangent talking about tumours, drinking, gambling etc, this is probably a good time for the thread to be locked.

Pollycat

fabforty wrote: »

However, now the subject of child maintenance has been raised by the daughter on more than one occasion. I stated in my opening post her daughter has mentioned child maintenance on a few occasions recently, the clothing allowance was given as one example - so 'no' the clothing allowance is not 'clearly the main issue' (I can't remember who said that, I'm afraid)

I'm really glad you posted this.

I actually read the original post carefully before posting - and have gone back on several occasions to re-read it.

It's very clear that a lot of posters who've responded haven't done so.
That is their prerogative - but to me, it just muddies the water.

I've actually posted just above yours that the clothing allowance was just an example.
It was silvercar who said that the clothing allowance was the main issue, but it was clear from the start that it wasn't.

I agree that a lot of discussion about all sorts of things (some quite bizarre) have been brought into this thread but I personally would like it to stay open.

DUTR

duchy wrote: »

No I don't think it is -In fact I'm wondering if you read the same OP that I did.

Clothing allowances for twelve year olds aren't uncommon nowdays -not as a luxury but as a way of teaching budgeting.

Strange ? Did we need clothing allowances to be taught budgetting?

The child doesn't get extra clothes they simply get to choose for themselves

Nowt wrong with choosing themselves, they just don't need to have the money in their hand to do that

and if they choose to save for one designer label item or blow the allowance in one go at Primark then lessons about budgeting are learned in both cases.

I'm not sure why you think lack of income would be directly attributable to parents drinking -My parents worked hard and neither of them drank but money was often tight but if I wanted something they couldn't afford they always accorded me the courtesy of explaining why I couldn't have it -whether it was "It's not worth the money" or "we simply can't afford it" never just a blanket "NO".

I agree just like my parents did do, just that my now divorced parents would be scraping the barrel to levy blame on the other as to why we couldn't have something, or even levy any kind of blame.

I do believe in financial honesty with children -and I do think children can be damaged if they discover parents have lied to them. This isn't a case of "You can't have it because your Dad is skinflint who refuses to pay for you" it's a case of "You are asking for money from a source that doesn't exist".


Here I agree with thelogic, the source doesn't exist that the child believes is the real reason, just because 'everybody' else appears to be getting supported, after all MOST people are not from broken (seperated) families.

A twelve year old has the assumption that all absent Dads pay support.....that's the norm with their friends -it wouldn't even occur to them that their Dad doesn't. They may even just accept "Dad doesn't work so doesn't pay support" without question if they have friends with Dads who are unemployed and class Dad as unemployed rather than a SAHD. (Dad might squirm a bit when he realizes this of course especially if sympathetic questions are asked about his lack of job offers and he realizes she regards him as jobless).

As you may know from some of my other posts, I'm one of these ansent NRPs that does pay and don't won't see, perhaps if the MUm was working full time just like my Mum and many other Mums do, then I maybe more interested in offering the 'treats' that may or may not be deserved, however as a prop for the drop, no thank you.

WE as adults have very firm ideas about role models and gender from our own upbringing -it doesn't follow our kids will have the same ideas -and it is entirely possible that a twelve year old has no issue with a SAHD by choice as they don't have the same preconceptions that we do.

I fear I'm quite balanced on the role model gender thing, having had chats with the Mum in 2013, it does seem some ideas children have are not directly from those they grow up with, as the Mum has said she has had it thrown in her face from the youngest that she hopes she does not end up like the Mum, with lots of negative slander (some of which we see on various boards here) , that said I have my a4 foolscap to present to them on or after the 19th or 20th b/day if they want to challenge that I didn't meet my minimum obligations :eek:

Errata

I think the thread's been useful and may have given some people pause for thought and figured out if they were in the "No, because I said so" camp or the "No, because dad didn't get any overtime this month" camp.

FBaby

Interesting so you don't want to pay maintenance to you ex because she doesn't work but seem to support the nrp's decision here not to work and support his children in this thread. Isn't this a contradiction?

DUTR

FBaby wrote: »

Ok, I assume you would support my decision to cut down on my hours because I don't have enough social time and want to move on from totally dedicating everything to my children

Actually I do

and that as a result, it is perfectly acceptable that my ex should start to pay a hefty maintenance because of my right to move on with my life.

Actually I do, depends what you call hefty though, 15, 20 25% net then yes why not.

Oh and I expect him to tell my children that it is ok that he has to work extra hours and can't see them as often as a result because I have every right to move on? Come on....

Erm yes, that is life sometimes being a victim of the wicked capitalist sytem a machine oiled by the blood of the workers
'You' can do all for the children, however at a point in the future, they will have grown up and moved on with their own lives, so you do have to balance that sacrifice, and accept that not everybody partners/ex partners readers are not going to share the shame enthusiasm to the sacrifices, or think the rewards were worth the effort , then time wil tell if offering that clothes allowance etc was really worth it, :eek: