Young people who live with you part of the time and their keep

Jet

Perhaps I should have made it clear what that was in response to. When it was mentioned that if anyone charges a child who has two homes "keep" there is always a chance that the child will choose to live with the other parent for free keep. I know my step daughter wouldn't do this but I don't sgree you should not charge keep for fear the child might not live with you anymore.

CathA

Yes it costs to have an extra teenager (plus best friend, boyfriend, etc.) around, and I don't agree with other posts about the electricity cost being small. But for my friend this 17 year old had left education and got a job, so the friend no longer paid maintenance.


Personally I charge keep to an extra teenager and he costs me more than I charge. The hike in electricity units used is noticeable.[/QUOTE]

One of my girls used to come back and forth from uni; weekends, holiday, Christmas etc. We had a meter which used to measure roughly the amount of electric used (got it free from British Gas, I think) and when she was home it used to increase by £10 PER WEEK! Hair dryers, straighteners and long, looonnng showers cost a fortune and we made her payfor it. Mind you, she had several jobs and due to the way she was raised was very sensible with money. In fact, she was the richest student I knew! She wasn't keen on paying it but too bad, it never hurts them to learn that in life, nothing is for free!

silvercar

Jet wrote: »

Perhaps I should have made it clear what that was in response to. When it was mentioned that if anyone charges a child who has two homes "keep" there is always a chance that the child will choose to live with the other parent for free keep. I know my step daughter wouldn't do this but I don't sgree you should not charge keep for fear the child might not live with you anymore.

But, according to your logic, if they then decided to live 100% of the time with one parent that parent is then very likely to charge.

Remember the NRP now has a saving of maintenance whereas the PWC has lost maintenance. So it seems reasonable if any parent is going to charge it is the PWC especially as they are likely to continue to spend more time there. The NRP has saved on maintenance levels by the number of nights they have had their child, so to now charge based on those number of nights seems churlish.

seems reasonable to say: Mum has lost maintenance and as an earning adult we all now expect you to pay some keep to Mum. so no free ride but no charging per meal at Dad's house.

another analogy, if a young adult moved out of home to rent privately near work but came home say once a week to see the family, would you charge for that meal? Or would you be delighted to see them, for yourselves and for their sibling relationships?

Jet

silvercar wrote: »

But, according to your logic, if they then decided to live 100% of the time with one parent that parent is then very likely to charge.

Remember the NRP now has a saving of maintenance whereas the PWC has lost maintenance. So it seems reasonable if any parent is going to charge it is the PWC especially as they are likely to continue to spend more time there. The NRP has saved on maintenance levels by the number of nights they have had their child, so to now charge based on those number of nights seems churlish.

seems reasonable to say: Mum has lost maintenance and as an earning adult we all now expect you to pay some keep to Mum. so no free ride but no charging per meal at Dad's house.

another analogy, if a young adult moved out of home to rent privately near work but came home say once a week to see the family, would you charge for that meal? Or would you be delighted to see them, for yourselves and for their sibling relationships?

But surely you can't and shouldn't try and dictate what goes on in the other house. Is it really up to us to tell her what she should pay her Mum? What if Mum doesn't charge at all?

Why should only the previous resident parent be paid keep, what if the care was 50/50? Do adults cost less when they live with the non resident parent?

And no, we wouldn't charge a visitor for coming to see us and if our children became visitors, we wouldn't charge them either. She lives with us a third of the time, she doesn't "visit" us.

Surely by charging a minimal amount (remember we are only talking £50 here from a £1000 pay packet) it actually gives her some comfort to know that this is her home and she's not a visitor when she lives with us. She's part of the family and expected to contribute as such.

How do you think she would feel if we said, "now you are working, you are just a visitor in our home and we will now start treating you as such". She would be upset and rightly so. Young people are becoming older and older before they move out, she could still be living at home when she's 30.

It's also transparent for all the children that you pay for (or at least contribute towards) what you have, whether that's full time or part time.

silvercar

How do you think she would feel if we said, "now you are working, you are just a visitor in our home and we will now start treating you as such". She would be upset and rightly so. Young people are becoming older and older before they move out, she could still be living at home when she's 30.

No one would ever say that obviously!

Do you seriously think that parents who don't charge their children say anything like that to them? Do you think children who live rent free think they feel like visitors? Whether you charge or not doesn't dictate whether your child feels at home.

But surely you can't and shouldn't try and dictate what goes on in the other house. Is it really up to us to tell her what she should pay her Mum? What if Mum doesn't charge at all?

I would have thought discussions would be useful. After all if Mum is now financially struggling and relys on the financial support that she needs to get from child, then you should be aware of that in deciding what is reasonable to ask for yourself. otherwise you risk forcing the child to spend less time with you in order to be able to give her Mum the money she needs.

Jet

Quite often maintenance and benefits covers more than food and the cost of living with mum. Should children pay the same as maintenance?

You seem to assume that mums / resident parents are worse off than non resident parents. As a resident parent (I am one myself) should you not aim to not rely on that income when the time comes?

If necessary you should charge your adult working children what they cost you or less if you can afford and wish to do so. If there's a difference between this and maintenance and any benefits, shouldn't you find that difference yourself? You seem to be saying that the child should make this up.

I think in a situation where children live in two homes, I think it's important that not being charged does send a clear message that you aren't a family member. Perhaps this can work if there is only one non resident "child" but in our case we have several children to consider. If you are a "together" family and you choose to not charge rent and you discuss the reasons why, then I do think that's different. But we will be asking our Four children to contribute. We won't be saying to one or two that they don't have to contribute because their mother should take her money only.

duchy

So you've calculated how much this poor girl is "costing you" but can you also quantify how much she is saving you by leaving school rather than staying in education ? Presumably Mr "no-one gets anything over on me" was paying child support for her and has now stopped paying. How much ?

Bottom line is the majority of families -blended or not (what a feeble excuse) with a non resident child are better off by a sum that more than covers the cost of a bit of food and electricity and wouldn't bother "charging" as they are 1 Better off anyway and 2 Are aware the "child" is going to want to spend less time with them as an adult and will do everything to make sure they feel wanted and welcome as this situation will change as they become more independent of both parents as a matter of course.
You on the other hand are telling her she is only welcome to stay as a family member if she pays.

Your attitude stinks - you're better off anyway as you won't be paying child support yet still want money off the youngster on top. Most people don't want to profit from their kids the way you do !

Your argument about the other children is a stupid one- They already live with you - so instead of saving you money by leaving school - they will cost you money as you'd lose child benefit and possibly tax credits so charging them keep is entirely justifiable as there is a clear loss-as apposed to the clear cash gain in the budget from stopping child support for this young lady.

In your shoes I'd definitely ask her to contribute whilst she was there- but I'd be asking her to do it in more family positive ways like buying Saturday night pizza or bringing treats for everyone with her so she is making a visable contribution but isn't treated as a paying guest but as the family member she is. As a matter of interest under this current scheme -if she went away on holiday or for a weekend- would you still be charging her ?

samyorks

Take the figure you would reasonably ask for per week for bed and board, divide it by 7 and charge her pro-rata for the days she stays, simple! Then its fair, and the younger ones will know when they are earning they also will be treated fairly. Good luck with it.

silvercar

As a resident parent (I am one myself) should you not aim to not rely on that income when the time comes?

If necessary you should charge your adult working children what they cost you or less if you can afford and wish to do so. If there's a difference between this and maintenance and any benefits, shouldn't you find that difference yourself? You seem to be saying that the child should make this up.

I am not saying that at all. I am saying you should have a discussion with the other parent, rather than consider your family unit in isolation.

You are contradicting yourself. You say you shouldn't be reliant on their income and that you say you should charge them less than the costs of having them if you can afford it, yet you say you "need" to charge so they don't feel like visitors and so they pay their way.

If you are not reliant in their income, why charge per meal and how does that stop them feeling like lodgers?

Jet

samyorks wrote: »

Take the figure you would reasonably ask for per week for bed and board, divide it by 7 and charge her pro-rata for the days she stays, simple! Then its fair, and the younger ones will know when they are earning they also will be treated fairly. Good luck with it.

That's pretty much what we have done. We are happy with it.

Apparently some people seem to think that only Mum's deserve to charge keep though.