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

FBaby

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

I am quite astuned that anyone could believe that all it takes for a parent to be great is to have contact with them. Children come with responsibilities, and that includes financially supporting them. In my mind, any parent who doesn't support them, or doesn't do everything they can to support ALL their children is a crap parent, however loving they are.

My own view (after working with children from blended/split families) is that the children do not need to know the ins and outs of financial matters.

I strongly disagree with that. I think it is because of this common belief that many kids become adults who are totally clueless about money and think it grows on tree. Children should be taught about financial matter from a young age adapted to what is appropriate for their age. That's where the discussion of whether it is right or when it is right to discuss the issue of maintenance comes in.

I personally find it totally disgraceful that any parent would rely solely on the salary of the new partner when they have their own children to support. Unfortunately, the system makes it that pwcp are expected to support their step-children whilst nrpp are absolved of any responsibility in any way? On which basis, I don't know.

My circumstances are similar to your friend and my children know that my ex doesn't pay any maintenance. I didn't tell them so they could think less of their dad, as did because money management is part of their upbringing. They know about interest, mortage, savings, credits and even now pensions. They have bank accounts that they manage. They know that we will only go on holiday this summer if I have saved enough to afford it and there have been no emergencies. They totally accept that. Maintenance came up one day because I also pay for their bus fare for them to go and see their dad each week, that means I also give them cash so they can pay their return and they asked why daddy didn't pay.

Like many non paying dads, my ex have always lavished them with presents at Christmas and of course, they thought he was wonderful. They are now older and are starting to understand the concept of budget management and can put it all into perspective.

bossymoo

How will kids ever learn about finances and responsibility if parents hide it from them? We're not preparing them well if they expect everyone to behave with decency and honour

Brighton_belle

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.

I'm another one for who it is inconceivable that he can be considered a 'great dad' for deliberately choosing a lifestyle which means he does not contribute his children's welfare financially and for valuing his 2nd lot of children over his first.
It's not an accident he does not earn any money - it is a choice.

fabforty

supersaver2 wrote: »

I wonder if resident parents that rely on income support/ tax credits tell their children that they don't support them financially - of course not!

It's not really the same thing though, is it?

mummyroysof3

At that age and seeing as the child raised the subject first I would be explaining the truth tbh

LannieDuck

I would either:

i) Explain that Dad doesn't work at the moment, so doesn't pay any maintenance
ii) Suggest she asks her Dad about it (and gives him warning that the question may be coming)

I agree with the PP who said she may have come from her school friends - she complains she never has any pocketmoney, one of her friends says "well, your Dad pays maintenance, doesn't he? that money's for you, not your mum" etc

Mrs_Imp

shop-to-drop wrote: »

It does sound like he has put the wellbeing of his new family over and above his other children. Why couldn't he do a part time job in the evenings or weekends and send this money to support his two children.

By this logic, SAHMs should go out to work in the evening and at weekends, but many don't, because looking after children and a house is a full-time job in itself.

His new partner earns more than him, so it is reasonable for him to be the one to give up work. If he were to work evenings and weekends, then when would he see his older children?

The other option would have been for his new partner to give up work, but then any maintenance payments would be much reduced by the new children. With him having the lower wage it's unlikely that he'd be able to afford to buy much in the way of Christmas and birthday presents, as well as pay the maintenance. Everyone would suffer with that arrangement.

The current arrangement seems to work quite well. When it comes to school holidays, then he should be able to look after the older two, thereby saving the mother a whole lot of hassle and costs on childcare. He's available for school pick-ups and inset days.

It would be very easy to assume that he deliberately chose not to work in order not to pay maintenance, but I suspect it's nothing of the sort. The current arrangement allows him to put all of his children first in terms of time and emotional involvement.

Spendless

Mrs_Imp wrote: »

By this logic, SAHMs should go out to work in the evening and at weekends, but many don't, because looking after children and a house is a full-time job in itself.

His new partner earns more than him, so it is reasonable for him to be the one to give up work. If he were to work evenings and weekends, then when would he see his older children?

Working evening/weekends is certainly what I did when we had eldest in order to bring in an income when we couldn't afford childcare.

You don't normally work EVERY weekday night PLUS every weekend day. My first job consisted of 2 evenings per week plus 1 shift on a Sunday. My next job was to work Mon -Fri 5pm-8pm.

I should imagine that he'd have time to see his other children at the same times I saw my husband during these working patterns ie on the nights and weekend days that he wasn't at work and during the day in school hols up to the point his shift started.

gunsandbanjos

Difficult question, I wish I could tell DD that her dad has never given me a penny towards her, but I don't want to make her feel like piggy in the middle.

She doesn't need to know what a douche he is right now, I'm sure she will come to that conclusion by herself.

Person_one

Mrs_Imp wrote: »

By this logic, SAHMs should go out to work in the evening and at weekends, but many don't, because looking after children and a house is a full-time job in itself.

His new partner earns more than him, so it is reasonable for him to be the one to give up work. If he were to work evenings and weekends, then when would he see his older children?

The other option would have been for his new partner to give up work, but then any maintenance payments would be much reduced by the new children. With him having the lower wage it's unlikely that he'd be able to afford to buy much in the way of Christmas and birthday presents, as well as pay the maintenance. Everyone would suffer with that arrangement.

The current arrangement seems to work quite well. When it comes to school holidays, then he should be able to look after the older two, thereby saving the mother a whole lot of hassle and costs on childcare. He's available for school pick-ups and inset days.

It would be very easy to assume that he deliberately chose not to work in order not to pay maintenance, but I suspect it's nothing of the sort. The current arrangement allows him to put all of his children first in terms of time and emotional involvement.

Sorry but, are we reading the same thread?