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

mumps

Pollycat wrote: »

Because the particular parent we are talking about - that would be the one who doesn't work so he can spend more time with child #3 from his 2nd family - has no intention of putting his 2 eldest children first.

I'm talking purely about this scenario raised by the OP.

Not about your child's illness or how you handled it, not about drinking in families or the other myriad subjects you've brought into this thread on the latter pages of this thread.

I don't think you get what a discussion is and I don't think you make the rules on here.

The OP asked for people's advice/experience and I have as muchright as you to give mine. The issues I referred to came up due to what was brought up in the discussion e.g. talking about daughters illness in relation to lying. But I am sure you get that really, don't you? Oh well end of discussion then.

quidsy

but in this case when the child asks for her "maintenance" it is not up to the resident parent to lie & say, "oh sure, here you go" in order to not have a conversation with the 12 year old, who is now old enough to understand that her whole life is supported by one parent & not in part, by fictitious contributios from the other.

The op never stated the mother will bad mouth the NRP only that she would be honest with her child as to who supports them.

FBaby

mumps wrote: »

That is my point exactly, I think your mother got it right and let you make your own mind up. Children will work it out in their own time without being badmouthed.

But citing a fact that puts the other parent in not such good light because of his wrong doing is not badmouthing. We all agree that saying derogatory things such as 'your dad is a looser, it's selfish and clearly prefer his new kids'would be badmouthing and would be unfair to the child. Saying that father had stopped paying maintenance because he now stays at home to look after his other children and therefore doesn't earn a salary is just pointing a fact of which a 12yo can make her own mind up and hopefully choose to discuss herself with her dad.

mumps

quidsy wrote: »

but in this case when the child asks for her "maintenance" it is not up to the resident parent to lie & say, "oh sure, here you go" in order to not have a conversation with the 12 year old, who is now old enough to understand that her whole life is supported by one parent & not in part, by fictitious contributios from the other.

The op never stated the mother will bad mouth the NRP only that she would be honest with her child as to who supports them.

Who has said she should lie? She doesn't have to outline her financial arrangements to a 12 year old.

quidsy

so when said child says, "mum can I have some of the maintenance dad gives you to buy new trainers". What exactly, is mum supposed to say?

Because by handing it over ,she has #1 lied as to the source of the money #2 paid out for something yet again on top of everything else she pays for, #3 given the child a false sense that the father is contributing financially in any way & #4 created in the child an incorrect expectation of financial prosertity that just isn't there


So next time, maybe the kid wants an ipod out of "maintenance", who pays?

or how about if she wants to go to uni? Hey, no problem, dads maintenance will cover the basics.

The potential problems for the mother are endless. All to save the NRP's feelings of disgrace. No, better the child has no false sense of financial support from the NRP, the mother does well enough but the child needs to learn not to have false hopes & unrealistic expectations based on falsely perceived contributions from the NRP.

Pollycat

mumps wrote: »

I don't think you get what a discussion is and I don't think you make the rules on here.

Actually, I do get what a discussion is.
And I never said I made the rules on here, did I?

mumps wrote: »

The OP asked for people's advice/experience and I have as muchright as you to give mine. The issues I referred to came up due to what was brought up in the discussion e.g. talking about daughters illness in relation to lying. But I am sure you get that really, don't you? Oh well end of discussion then.

I don't think you understand 'on topic'. :rotfl:

And no, I didn't get the connection between the OP's question and your posts about your daughter's illness or general drinking, drugs and gambling.

And I wasn't the only one, was I?

Wow!
I've really ruffled your feathers, haven't I?

Do you understand what a discussion is?
Or can you not bear to have anyone disagree with you?

Pollycat

mumps wrote: »

How about just for once we put the children first? Both parents.

Pollycat wrote: »

Because the particular parent we are talking about - that would be the one who doesn't work so he can spend more time with child #3 from his 2nd family - has no intention of putting his 2 eldest children first.

I'm talking purely about this scenario raised by the OP.

Not about your child's illness or how you handled it, not about drinking in families or the other myriad subjects you've brought into this thread on the latter pages of this thread.

Mumps
before we go any further on the wrong foot - which I don't really want to do - I'd like to explain my comment (above) to your post (above).

Your sentiment would be wonderful in an Utopian world.

But, as has become clear from the posts by the OP on this thread, one parent is not putting his 2 'first' children first.

That is why I said my comment was 'purely about this specific scenario' and your (applaudable) comment/question didn't apply in this instance.

TBH, I did stop reading the majority of the latter part of this thread as it had gone so far off-topic that I got bored with it.

You obviously enjoyed the later 'discussion', I didn't.

We both have that choice.
You can discuss what you wish to and I can comment on what I'm reading.

silvercar

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'.

FBaby wrote: »

But citing a fact that puts the other parent in not such good light because of his wrong doing is not badmouthing. We all agree that saying derogatory things such as 'your dad is a looser, it's selfish and clearly prefer his new kids'would be badmouthing and would be unfair to the child. Saying that father had stopped paying maintenance because he now stays at home to look after his other children and therefore doesn't earn a salary is just pointing a fact of which a 12yo can make her own mind up and hopefully choose to discuss herself with her dad.

I think this last comment is more truthful. The one you suggested a couple of days ago was a lie because you claimed not to know the reason.

Dictionary definition:

bad-mouth
verbinformal
gerund or present participle: badmouthing
1.
criticize (someone) behind their back.
"no one wants to hire an individual who bad-mouths a prior employer"

Bad-mouthing is criticising someone behind their back - whether it is their fault or not. So even if it is true [that dad has chosen to stop work] to criticise him behind his back is bad mouthing.

patanne

Looking at it from the 12 year old girls point of view - she is resenting her mother working all hours, so far without any explanation. How bad is she going to feel when she gets to say 18 & realises that she has resented her mother for something that she had to do. She needs to be told for her own sake, in a matter of fact, non judgmental way.

FBaby

I think this last comment is more truthful. The one you suggested a couple of days ago was a lie because you claimed not to know the reason.

You're taking things out of context. My example was that, an example. It didn't specifically apply to the OP or my situation. In any case, I don't see how a pwc could be certain she knows the reason why their ex would choose not to work. It's been said here that it is because he is looking after the children, but that might not be the only reason. Maybe, only maybe, not paying maintenance was a factor in the decision? Or maybe he had enough of his job and was glad to give it up and stay home.

Bad-mouthing is criticising someone behind their back - whether it is their fault or not. So even if it is true [that dad has chosen to stop work] to criticise him behind his back is bad mouthing.

And the definition of criticizing :

indicate the faults of (someone or something) in a disapproving way

Saying that someone doesn't pay maintenance and they must have their reasons doesn't have to be considered a fault (after all it isn't in the eye of the csa). It also doesn't have to be said behind the person back (I personally have told my ex directly that I think he should be pay maintenance), so therefore not badmouthing either.

Again, it's all in the interpretation and perception of words and the one thing we systematically miss on forums which is the context behind the use of the words and tone.