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

FBaby

Of course it has to be age-appropriate but "protecting" teenagers from understanding household costs isn't a good thing.

My parents did so, although not to protect me but purely because they didn't consider the need to discuss it with me. I can shamefully say that despite getting good Maths 'A' levels, I struggled with the concept of anything over £10K when I was 18. I couldn't even say whether a house cost £10k or £100k. I was just about how ignorant as it gets. Inevitably, I did all the mistakes I could have made when it came to money management, wracked debts, didn't pay bills on time etc... Thankfully, I learnt very quickly when things got bad, and had a steady job that allowed me to sort it all out before it got out of hands and quickly realised that you get a lot more pleasure from savings than spending. However, I am painfully aware that I missed out on serious opportunities because of my complete naivity.

I can be certain that my kids won't make the same mistakes or worse, but I feel that will be as armed as they can be dealing with money when they are left on their own to manage.

mumps

FBaby wrote: »

But how do you know that it was their mum honesty that made the childre suffer rather than the pure fact that their dad was a waste of time?



Money management is not just about budgeting. There is a lot more to it. I want my kids to know about the notion of credit, interest rates, the role of banking, insurance etc... all things that are beyong managing pocket money.

I can't go into too much details that could identify another family but even the mother feels she was wrong and is working to try and put things right. I know several families that split up, the one I have referred to, another very nasty split where children were abducted abroad and others that although difficult initially the parents did work hard at making the children happy and secure. Maybe it is just luck but the children from the last group seem relatively unaffected by what went on. I suppose there might be studies that would indicate what has the best long term outcome.

I didn't just give my kids pocket money. They had a sum paid into the bank every month, they had debit cards. The sum wasn't small, around £100 a month to cover lunches, bus fares, some clothes and fun. They then made decisions and over the years experimented with buying a bus pass, cheaper per journey but no saving if you got a lift or walked or cycled, bought full school lunch or got up early and made a lunch. They also looked into saving accounts and three of the four saved well, the other was a spender but that is a choice and he did learn about controlling his spending. The "spender" is also a very hard worker so I guess that balances it up. Various ISAs were joined and then moved when interest rates changed. Obviously at 11 they had some advice but by 16 they had part time jobs and completely managed their own money.

I think if parents added the costs I mentioned they would find it is quite a big sum. I know some kids won't have bus fares and some families might have free school meals which would reduce the figure considerably but for alot of families £100 would be a reasonable, and perhaps fairly low figure. I always felt it cost me less to let them manage the money than to hand over the cash bit by bit because we all know how that can add up.

I found it worked well and they were able to make good choices about how to manage their money. One of them works in financial services now and earns good money, I hope what he learned as a child has helped but hard to be sure.

FBaby

Maybe it is just luck but the children from the last group seem relatively unaffected by what went on.

Or maybe it was bad luck in the first instance? I don't think we can generalise as there will be many factors that will affect how children react, their personal emotional maturity for a start. I also strongly believe that there are different ways to say things. Saying something like 'your dad is a loser, his new life is more important than his old, shows how much he cares about you', is expected to be received differently to 'your dad has chosen not to work which means that he can't pay maintenance. I don't agree that this is right but he must have reasons that I don't know about. Maybe if you wish, you could ask him about it'.

I was brought up by my mum who was always very opened about expressing onself. She sometimes told me things I didn't like to hear, but she never ever put me down for disagreeing with her. As a matter of fact, we often disagree about things, but that forms part of our discussions. I have the same approach with my children. I remember my 5 yo asking me if I believe in God and when I said no, she very assertively answered 'well I do because Mrs F (teacher) does'. It made me smile, but I was happy that she didn't feel she had to agree with me. I have made comments about their dad which my kids have disagreed with and again, I make it clear that they don't have to agree with me and it is absolutely fine. What is most important to me is that they develop their own ability to analyse information and draw conclusions, as well as learning to respect other people's view. Of course, there will be some influences from both me and their dad and that is fine. As a matter of fact, I am pleased they are exposed to two totally different lifestyle and choices as it really make them realise that there are different type of families and different ways of doing things and that in the end, what matters is that they get to live the life they have chosen for themselves and makes them happy.

silvercar

Saying something like 'your dad is a loser, his new life is more important than his old, shows how much he cares about you', is expected to be received differently to 'your dad has chosen not to work which means that he can't pay maintenance. I don't agree that this is right but he must have reasons that I don't know about. Maybe if you wish, you could ask him about it'.

But the second statement also isn't true. You know the reasons. You could if you wished say, 'your dad isn't working at the moment because he is providing childcare for your half sibling, so he is not paying maintenance. As the half sibling(s) get older this may change.'

Mojisola

silvercar wrote: »

But the second statement also isn't true. You know the reasons. You could if you wished say, 'your dad isn't working at the moment because he is providing childcare for your half sibling, so he is not paying maintenance. As the half sibling(s) get older this may change.'

There's no need to even say this.

What's wrong with "Your Dad doesn't pay any maintenance because he's not working" - no value judgments, no trying to explain his actions.

If she wants to know more, get her to ask her Dad.

lostinrates

silvercar wrote: »

But the second statement also isn't true. You know the reasons. .'

You know what you are being TOLD are the reasons.

Inside families, we all know, things might appear different. Becoming a sahd might be convenient for other reasons he feels he doesn't wish to share with an ex wife. Health, emotional, practical.

Some of the sah fathers I know include resting actors and musicians who'd be working like a shot if there work for them, for example. Stay at home parent sounds less...without choice.

There is no saying, fwiw, anyone ever gets a whole truth. . Doesn't mean we cannot do our best at providing good, positive information.

Prothet_of_Doom

It really is a silly question. If a 12 year old wants to know where the money comes from, and where it goes, I'd be downloading the MSE Budget Planner, and going through it with her, so she knows what descisions you have to make.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/redir/e5897875

On the income, she might find that there is no maintenance paid, and yes it might change her relationship with her dad, but hey.

On the subject of clothes allowance, my mother basically gave me the Child Benefit, and a list of clothes I had to buy, and any change she allowed me to spend on "going out clothes".

mumps

FBaby wrote: »

Or maybe it was bad luck in the first instance? I don't think we can generalise as there will be many factors that will affect how children react, their personal emotional maturity for a start. I also strongly believe that there are different ways to say things. Saying something like 'your dad is a loser, his new life is more important than his old, shows how much he cares about you', is expected to be received differently to 'your dad has chosen not to work which means that he can't pay maintenance. I don't agree that this is right but he must have reasons that I don't know about. Maybe if you wish, you could ask him about it'.
.

Yes it might be bad luck and just coincidence that the families I know where parents have worked together and not been critical of each other have had less problems.

Re the highlighted quote, I think both sound negative and judgemental, first one more so but there is a definite message in the second one. I think that is probably the problem here, what people view as negative isn't always the same, I think it is possible to tell the daughter but it is very hard to do it in a positive way.

At the end of the day the OP asked for opinions and she has them. I have only given my opinion on what I have personally witnessed and how it would influence me in this situation. I hope OPs friend and her children are OK.

mumps

Prothet_of_Doom wrote: »

On the income, she might find that there is no maintenance paid, and yes it might change her relationship with her dad, but hey.

"but hey" sums up my worries about a cavalier attitude to the effect on the child.

GobbledyGook

mumps wrote: »

I agree it doesn't always mean blaming but it can and I think that is when it is damaging, or can be damaging. The friend I referred to justified the information about her husband by saying she was being honest with her children and that was true but she didn't just say, "dad can't afford to give me anything." She would say, "dad can't give me anything because he prefers his cannabis, alcohol, fags, whatever." It was said in a negative way.

I think if separated parents are going to say something about the other parent they need to think about the message the child will get, it is very different to a happily married couple saying something. My father died due to alcohol but I think we were all relatively unscathed because of my mother being incredibly positive about him. Obviously we were sad, any child would be, but it would have been so easy for us to get the message that he chose booze not us, I don't think you would even need to have been negative about it, just being neutral would have been hard.

I just think that people saying be honest, if it has a negative outcome that is his fault aren't going to be the ones picking up the pieces if the children are hurt by it.

It must have been hard for you and your grandparents, I don't really have any experience of children being brought up by grandparents so not sure how that would work. I agree that children do know something is going on and I suppose alot of it would depend on how much children knew, I mean if you have been exposed to your parents problems it would be pointless grandparents trying to pretend nothing was going on.

I think your example of your mother is a prime one showing that you can have a choice of a parent that does negatively impact a child's life and the child can be aware of that without it leading to the child thinking badly of the parent. So in this case the mother could explain it; which is not the same as 'your Dad doesn't give me anything for you because he's got a new family now'.

You can, imo, discuss not great things someone has done with your children without expressing or portraying a negative attitude