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

mumps

GobbledyGook wrote: »

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

Sorry, we have crossed wires here. We did not know he was an alcoholic and we did not know that was the cause of his death. I probably pieced it together by the time I was 17 or 18. As children we knew he drank but so did most of the adult males we knew, well I can't think of any who didn't. We knew he was ill but didn't know the cause. But I do agree that it is possible to explain it without giving a negative message but I think that is very hard and because I think the negative message can damage the child I wouldn't take the risk.

FBaby

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

I think this is where we have an opposite opinion of what is best for children. From my perspective, if I think something negative of a situation, discussing in a neutral way IS lying to my kids because I am not sharing what I really think. I would not however make things up and I would make it clear that it is my view and doesn't have the be the true one. I have shown to my children that I can change my mind about things.

My children know that I don't respect much the choices he has made, but that I do care about his wellbeing because he is their father and more importantly, that I very much respect their love for him. I always made sure that they remembered his birthday, that they called him when we are on holiday etc... When they told me that he had gone to hospital, I showed concern and asked them if they wanted to go and see him there etc...

I will not however pretend that I think him not paying any maintenance doesn't matter or that I think he must have a good reason not to do so or worse lie about it.

mumps

FBaby wrote: »

I think this is where we have an opposite opinion of what is best for children. From my perspective, if I think something negative of a situation, discussing in a neutral way IS lying to my kids because I am not sharing what I really think. I would not however make things up and I would make it clear that it is my view and doesn't have the be the true one. I have shown to my children that I can change my mind about things.

My children know that I don't respect much the choices he has made, but that I do care about his wellbeing because he is their father and more importantly, that I very much respect their love for him. I always made sure that they remembered his birthday, that they called him when we are on holiday etc... When they told me that he had gone to hospital, I showed concern and asked them if they wanted to go and see him there etc...

I will not however pretend that I think him not paying any maintenance doesn't matter or that I think he must have a good reason not to do so or worse lie about it.

Yes we do have opposite views, I think we have a huge influence on our children and the danger of being "honest" about our feelings is we influence what they think about the NRP. I don't feel I have that right and if I was in that situation I wouldn't want the NRP being negative about me. Each to his own. By the way can I ask how old your children are? Just wondered if the age influences you at all.

shop-to-drop

You are doing an injustice to a twelve year old if you don't think they can have independent thoughts from their parents.

silvercar

FBaby wrote: »

I think this is where we have an opposite opinion of what is best for children. From my perspective, if I think something negative of a situation, discussing in a neutral way IS lying to my kids because I am not sharing what I really think. I would not however make things up and I would make it clear that it is my view and doesn't have the be the true one. I have shown to my children that I can change my mind about things.

Wow! So you know your view is biased but you present that to your children. Even if you explain that this is your view, do you also explain that you know you are biased?

As the PWC you have a very large influence on your children and preventing your negative views in this way is bound to create a bias against their father.

PolishBigSpender

pinkshoes wrote: »

What's to tell?? Their dad gave up his career to look after his two other children. If he doesn't earn money, then he can't contribute financially, but he does see them regularly and never forgets Christmas and birthday presents.

Sounds like a great dad, so she should tell them that.

A great dad maybe, but for the two "new" children, not for the older ones.He gets them Christmas presents, what a great sacrifice that is!

I think your friend should explain the situation to her children.

Errata

Normal dads give their children birthday and christmas presents, I don't believe they view themselves as great dads for doing so - just normal ones.

Mojisola

FBaby wrote: »

From my perspective, if I think something negative of a situation, discussing in a neutral way IS lying to my kids because I am not sharing what I really think. I would not however make things up and I would make it clear that it is my view and doesn't have the be the true one. I have shown to my children that I can change my mind about things.

I can see where you're coming from. I think our children need to be taught how to manage emotions just as much as money, time, etc. I used to explain my feelings to the kids, especially when they could see that something had made me feel sad, happy, angry, and so on and they were (and still are) able to talk to me when things made them feel good or bad.

They learned about how to manage their emotions better because I'd explained, for example, that I understood why neighbour X did something but it still made me cross, or that friend Y hadn't done a big thing but she had gone out of her way to help me and that made me feel really happy and grateful.

It was never a case of every day and all the time but when the situation was right, a discussion about what was happening was valid. Children get taught at an early age that hitting or biting isn't nice but the more subtle emotions are often never discussed.

I have a friend who was brought up by parents who thought that the family atmosphere should always be calm so the kids weren't allowed to get too excited, weren't allowed to show anger, weren't allowed to be sad and mope about. The parents had their arguments in hissed tones after the children had gone to bed but, of course, the kids heard them. My friend said how anxious it made her, hearing her parents express anger when anger was such a bad thing.

Having an emotional reaction is normal - being able to understand and deal with them is an essential part of being an adult.

FBaby

silvercar wrote: »

Wow! So you know your view is biased but you present that to your children. Even if you explain that this is your view, do you also explain that you know you are biased?

As the PWC you have a very large influence on your children and preventing your negative views in this way is bound to create a bias against their father.

Where did you get that I knew my view was biased. I don't think it is at all. I provided them with a fact (he doesn't pay maintenance) and my view (not shared with any hostility). That's not being biased.

Majisola that's exactly it. As it is I think my approach seems to have the opposite effect as my kids feel comfortable telling me if they don't agree with me which they do. Of course there are matters that are not up for discussion and where my authority takes precedence no matter what.

Herongull

I can see the logic in his partner working fulltime and him becoming a SAHD, given she has a higher salary.

I don't see the logic in him no longer paying maintenance for his existing child. Even if he no longer has a salary, his partner is working and therefore there is money coming in and some must be available for his existing child, even if this is less than before due to only one salary coming in and a new child.

His existing child is being disadvantaged because her sole carer (the mother) has to work full-time and therefore has less time to spend on the child. His new family has a stay at home parent and a parent working full time. If he continued to pay some maintenance the mother could work shorter hours and spend more time with his existing child.

So on the face of it, he has chosen to short-change his existing child for the benefit of new one.

Since the child has raised the subject of maintenance, then she should be told that he isn't contributing financially. I agree it should be done in a neutral way ie he isn't working at present so he can no longer contribute.

When she gets older, she might draw her own conclusions from the situation, but so be it. If parents choose not to support their children, why should children not be able to draw their own conclusions when they are old enough to do so.

Better that than have the child wrongly blaming the mother for not spending enough time with her when she was growing up.