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

DUTR

FBaby wrote: »

No but I would like to understand them, thanks or not! The feeling I get, rightly or not is that you are concerned about the fact that you ex is/would be spending the maintenance you provided innapropriately and it is the lack of control that is the issue. That's fair enough, but it is not the case with the OP. She has to work additional and unsociable hours because of his lacking to pay maintenance. It's not a case of wanting more maintenance above the minimum, but maintenance all together.

Maybe you are seeing this 'clothes allowance' as a luxury and that is the issue. What I can say is that my DD shot up by over 5 inches at the age of 12 and won't even mention her bra size. I spent a lot of money on clothing that year as a result. That same year, her brother's shoe size went from a size 4 1/2 to 6, so again, spent much on that. Nothing was luxuries. My DD doesn't have a clothes allowance, although she does have pocket money. Her clothes consist of what she gets at Christmas, what she buys herself with her pocket money and what I do buy because she needs something in the middle of the year.

But as it's been said, the thread wasn't about children being spoilt, getting allowances etc... the question was about whether a 12 year old was mature enough to process the knowledge that her father doesn't contribute towards their needs when they believe that they do and in the potential impact that knowledge would have on their feelings.

Let's start again, and trynot to divert from the original thread, however have you not noticed I have never reffered to my Daughters Mum as my ex?
Anyways, whatever the PWC wants to spend it on is up to them, as long as I do my part (bit as some may) 15% net, I have no complaint, I agree with you about the growth rate, it doesn't dictate a need for pocket money or allowances, however those that choose to is always up to them, perhaps you may misunderstand where I'm coming from with my grievance, trust me I am very left and know of the struggle that the working class had to go through to get a fair slice of the pie. I only have to look around my office to see the many women on equal pay and do their full hours to support their children and treat them if they so choose, where as Marie Buchan gets more than the UK average wage whilst on benefits and still complains that she may not cope.
If the daughter's friends get allowances etc off their parents, and she feels she is getting treated less so, then perhaps it's because the parents for a host of reasons cannot or choose not to, however they will be soon of an age where they can work and choose how they spend themselves, but like you have seen me post before 15% is 15%

DUTR

fabforty wrote: »

With all due respect, this thread isn't about you or your situation and funnily enough, it isn't even about people who are in your situation.
You pay for children but don't see them, while the father in this case doesn't pay but does see his children. The mother in this thread works and receives no benefits, whereas you suggest that you ex does. The parents in this thread have a civil relationship, whereas (forgive me if I have this wrong), but you and you ex apparently do not. The only thing that you do have in common is that you are separated and you have children.


I have read some of your posts on the CSA thread, and it's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with you. However I do sometimes wonder if you actually read the posts you are responding to or if you spot the dreaded 'NRP' phrase and hit the keyboard churning out stock phrases, and relating your experiences even if they have no bearing on the matter at hand. A bit like the poster who keeps bringing benefit claimants into this thread, despite the fact that nobody in this thread is claiming benefits. Perhaps it's therapeutic. Just a thought. [smiling Smilie].

I agree, however the guy is not working so is not sanctioned to pay, after all 15% of nothing is nothing.
As Marisco points out there is probably a lot more to the whole story than originally posted, and to be fair, perhaps nearly every reply to the thread is coloured by the repliers own life experience?
It would be hard not to consider one's own experience when replying, but yes I see what you are saying that PWCs are always good and NRPs are always bad.

Pollycat

Lunar_Eclipse wrote: »

In this case I would since the child assumes it is being paid and their assumption is incorrect.

Assuming that you mean you would tell the child the truth, I agree.

Lunar_Eclipse wrote: »

Next time the child mentioned it, I would simply say 'there is no maintenance.' Or, if a lighthearted approach is preferred, a reply could be along the lines of 'that's a great idea and one I'll consider if I receive any maintenance at some point in the future.'

Wouldn't argue with this.

Lunar_Eclipse wrote: »

How does the child even know about maintenance though? I'm wondering if the mum has mentioned hoping for some, or the dad has implied/stated that he's paying it? It's an odd thing for a 12 year old (?) child to know about.

I don't think it's odd at all.
In this day & age, kids know about all sorts of stuff.
Kids talk at school.
I have a 13 year old niece and I can well imagine her saying something like this. Luckily, her Dad does pay maintenance.

But if he didn't, and she had said this and my sister asked me for my opinion, I'd say the same as I said to the OP:
Tell her the truth. "Your Dad doesn't pay maintenance so there isn't any clothing allowance from that money to be had".

From the way the OP phrased the original post, it certainly doesn't sound like the Mum has mentioned it:

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.

fabforty

Just to clarify, the mother has not mentioned child maintenance at all. Her daughter has brought the subject up a few times, in different indirect ways and her mum has moved the question on. If/when she is asked directly (as we both expect that to come soon), she didn't know if it was best to lie or to tell the truth. She has no interest in badmouthing their father - just what should she say in the circumstances. There really is no more to it than that. They split amicably, they split their possessions fairly (as fairly as possible) - the house was in negative equity and she stayed there. He had both cars plus a mobile home that they had won, which he sold for a flat deposit. He has until recently, been a pretty decent father. I think that she thought that he would get this out of his system, would suddenly see sense and start working again.

Lunar_Eclipse

Pollycat wrote: »

Assuming that you mean you would tell the child the truth, I agree /QUOTE]

Yes, I do.

I don't see this as a big deal, but I appreciate that I have the luxury of being completely detached from it. I would not let a child of mine carry on believing there was maintenance being paid when there wasn't, especially given the consequences of the mother needing to work longer hours than she used to in order to support the family. It does the child no favours thinking their mum is choosing to earn more money than watch their Xmas play/sports day etc. That is the potentially damaging aspect in my opinion.

It's not about painting either parent in good or bad lights, because we all have positive and negative traits and this can easily be corrected in one simple, factual statement.

shop-to-drop

I think she is now at an age where girls stop playing with toys and life changes where they spend their time talking with their friends about their world fashion/makeup/music/boys and their family situation and things that have happened to them. It helps them make sense of the world and prepare for adulthood.

I have three preteen/ teen boys they are totally different and know practically nothing about their friends lives which I always find amazing being female. I'm sure she has friends whose parents are split and they talk about it and how it affects them. I would bet one has said she gets a clothing allowance funded by the maintenance, i bet another says her NRP doesn't pay any maintenance. It is natural for her to be inquisitive about this as it is part of her life. She deserves honesty and to be allowed to think this through for herself.

shop-to-drop

BTW FabForty I think your friend sounds like an excellent mum and I honestly really admire her. You have given enough information that I am confident to say this.

I guess that is probably why I have been following this thread so closely as I am willing things to go well for her and her daughters.

Pollycat

Lunar_Eclipse wrote: »

I don't see this as a big deal, but I appreciate that I have the luxury of being completely detached from it. I would not let a child of mine carry on believing there was maintenance being paid when there wasn't, especially given the consequences of the mother needing to work longer hours than she used to in order to support the family. It does the child no favours thinking their mum is choosing to earn more money than watch their Xmas play/sports day etc. That is the potentially damaging aspect in my opinion.

It's not about painting either parent in good or bad lights, because we all have positive and negative traits and this can easily be corrected in one simple, factual statement.

I didn't see it telling the child the truth as a big deal either.

But I have to say I'm really surprised by how many posters have said the Mum shouldn't tell the daughter that her Dad isn't paying maintenance.

And I'm even more surprised by the reasoning behind that.

And, not least, I'm surprised by the strange tangents this thread has taken at times.

poet123

mumps wrote: »

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.

I also think that scenario is not comparable. You are at that point (in your scenario) shielding your child from unpleasant possibilities, not actuality.

In this scenario the money is not there because the father does not pay it. It is not a down the line thing that may or may not happen, or be uncertain. She has asked about a factual issue.

Yorkie1

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I too think people are taking the attitude that it serves him right if the girl thinks less of him and blow her relationship with her father. They are not thinking of her, only the adults.

I think you're transferring far too much from your own perspective onto other posters. I have no reason to want the father to be done down, and have been very careful not to post along those lines.

Lunar_Eclipse wrote: »

How does the child even know about maintenance though? I'm wondering if the mum has mentioned hoping for some, or the dad has implied/stated that he's paying it? It's an odd thing for a 12 year old (?) child to know about.

As others have said, with the rate of relationship breakdown these days it's highly likely that some of her friends have NRPs who pay maintenance.