Is this Right?

TheWaltons_3

We pay the PWC a hefty amount each month and we never get to see the child. She drives a new car, goes out clubbing, smokes 40 a day and takes the kid around all her family to feed him.

When it is the run up to Easter, Christmas, Birthdays and special occasions.. a fortnight before she starts ringing up my MIL (her childs Nan) and taking him around there, same with us. When there, complains how skint she is, the child has worn clothes on and she is texting with the latest mobille phone all the while whinging about money.

It doesn't wash with us. Sadly, we are limited to being able to spend £30 for the childs birthday as we are in debt, have work that needs doing on the house to ensure that the younger children are warm in Winter and the house is safe. I refuse point blank to do without food for the week, or anything else to buy elaborate birthday presents anymore - we always have done, every Christmas spending up to £200. It can't be done anymore.

I am not bitter towards this woman, she does not bother me one bit, we chat on the phone and get on well considering past arguments. I am not jealous or anything else, my husband thinks she is the scum of the Earth for how she ripped him off badly over the years and his duty is for his child only. He pays her and that's it. There is no complaining about it. She gets her money every month without fail.

On the other side of the Coin, my close friend is being shat upon from a great height by the Father of her child.

And yes, there are alot of PWC who think that money is theirs. Then there are the PWC who desperately need it to survive. Like my friend.

aussiesbird

I must point out I am against anyone fiddling anything (well, so to speak!! ) But I do agree with repsolblade, he is not refusing to pay like many NRP do he just wants a fair assessment which gives his children a good quality of living but does not infringe on his own quality of life with his new partner. Surely that is not a lot to ask?!! After all, he is doing the extra work to provide for his family and if the PWC works and wants to save for something then she has the opportunity of either doing overtime if available or getting a part time job if she wants but the NRP wouldn't be entitled to any of that (quite rightly so) So why should the NRP be penalised in this way? The PWC also gets benefits from the state for help with childcare, WFTC, CTC. Does the NRP ask for a % of this? NO. The PWC can better herself if she wants to and will not be penalised for this but the NRP can't, without being penalised. It is not fair but I understand that it is the law. We are just trying to point out that the system is WRONG. And as I said to master99 (troll!!) Everyones situation on here is as important to them as yours is to you, so please don't shoot the messenger, we are only trying to point out the many flaws in the system.

Banana23

TheWaltons wrote: »

We pay the PWC a hefty amount each month and we never get to see the child. She drives a new car, goes out clubbing, smokes 40 a day and takes the kid around all her family to feed him.

When it is the run up to Easter, Christmas, Birthdays and special occasions.. a fortnight before she starts ringing up my MIL (her childs Nan) and taking him around there, same with us. When there, complains how skint she is, the child has worn clothes on and she is texting with the latest mobille phone all the while whinging about money.

It doesn't wash with us. Sadly, we are limited to being able to spend £30 for the childs birthday as we are in debt, have work that needs doing on the house to ensure that the younger children are warm in Winter and the house is safe. I refuse point blank to do without food for the week, or anything else to buy elaborate birthday presents anymore - we always have done, every Christmas spending up to £200. It can't be done anymore.

I am not bitter towards this woman, she does not bother me one bit, we chat on the phone and get on well considering past arguments. I am not jealous or anything else, my husband thinks she is the scum of the Earth for how she ripped him off badly over the years and his duty is for his child only. He pays her and that's it. There is no complaining about it. She gets her money every month without fail.

On the other side of the Coin, my close friend is being shat upon from a great height by the Father of her child.

And yes, there are alot of PWC who think that money is theirs. Then there are the PWC who desperately need it to survive. Like my friend.

I absolutely agree with you. No Pwc should take the mick either. It is completely out of order if she uses the money completely for herself and then tries other people (like family) to support her child.

Banana23

aussiesbird wrote: »

I must point out I am against anyone fiddling anything (well, so to speak!! ) But I do agree with repsolblade, he is not refusing to pay like many NRP do he just wants a fair assessment which gives his children a good quality of living but does not infringe on his own quality of life with his new partner. Surely that is not a lot to ask?!! After all, he is doing the extra work to provide for his family and if the PWC works and wants to save for something then she has the opportunity of either doing overtime if available or getting a part time job if she wants but the NRP wouldn't be entitled to any of that (quite rightly so) So why should the NRP be penalised in this way? The PWC also gets benefits from the state for help with childcare, WFTC, CTC. Does the NRP ask for a % of this? NO. The PWC can better herself if she wants to and will not be penalised for this but the NRP can't, without being penalised. It is not fair but I understand that it is the law. We are just trying to point out that the system is WRONG. And as I said to master99 (troll!!) Everyones situation on here is as important to them as yours is to you, so please don't shoot the messenger, we are only trying to point out the many flaws in the system.

I'm not trying to shoot the messenger. Yest the system is flawed and I agree there will be Nrp's that pay way more than they should be. This should be looked into by the CSA too.
Not everyone gets WFTC though and the CTC are obviously used towards childcare (and that doesn't cover the total amount that has to be spent on care as you'll probably know).
Nobody should be stopped to try and make a good life for themselves, but their children need to be priority.

Banana23

aussiesbird wrote: »

I must point out I am against anyone fiddling anything (well, so to speak!! ) But I do agree with repsolblade, he is not refusing to pay like many NRP do he just wants a fair assessment which gives his children a good quality of living but does not infringe on his own quality of life with his new partner. Surely that is not a lot to ask?!! After all, he is doing the extra work to provide for his family and if the PWC works and wants to save for something then she has the opportunity of either doing overtime if available or getting a part time job if she wants but the NRP wouldn't be entitled to any of that (quite rightly so) So why should the NRP be penalised in this way? The PWC also gets benefits from the state for help with childcare, WFTC, CTC. Does the NRP ask for a % of this? NO. The PWC can better herself if she wants to and will not be penalised for this but the NRP can't, without being penalised. It is not fair but I understand that it is the law. We are just trying to point out that the system is WRONG. And as I said to master99 (troll!!) Everyones situation on here is as important to them as yours is to you, so please don't shoot the messenger, we are only trying to point out the many flaws in the system.

I'm not trying to shoot the messenger. Yest the system is flawed and I agree there will be Nrp's that pay way more than they should be. This should be looked into by the CSA too.
Not everyone gets WFTC though and the CTC are obviously used towards childcare (and that doesn't cover the total amount that has to be spent on care as you'll probably know).
Nobody should be stopped to try and make a good life for themselves, but their children need to be priority.

TheWaltons_3

Banana23 wrote: »

I'm not trying to shoot the messenger. Yest the system is flawed and I agree there will be Nrp's that pay way more than they should be. This should be looked into by the CSA too.
Not everyone gets WFTC though and the CTC are obviously used towards childcare (and that doesn't cover the total amount that has to be spent on care as you'll probably know).
Nobody should be stopped to try and make a good life for themselves, but their children need to be priority.

If his ex should ever try and claim a percentage of our CTC (childcare only) I swear I would put in a CSA claim myself. My kids suffer enough, not with just the amount the CSA take from us, but the bills we have incurred over the years thanks to having to move business' to keep away from his ex... thanks to all the money he lost supporting her and everything else.

I am all for a man paying for his children, but he's got to be able to support the other children he has too. And before anyone dares say 'well he shouldn't have had more kids' - but it's OK for the PWC's to get pregnant to different men and live happily ever after?

His ex was disgusted when he had more kids and actually said 'I'm not being funny but if you split up with 'x' why should my child get less money than yours? My child was born before yours' - I very smugly told her that should I split up with my husband, she would get much less money seeing as I have 3 children with him.

I wonder if this is why she no longer tries to make life difficult for us?! :rotfl: It is not in her best interests for us to split up.

Banana23

aussiesbird wrote: »

I must point out I am against anyone fiddling anything (well, so to speak!! ) But I do agree with repsolblade, he is not refusing to pay like many NRP do he just wants a fair assessment which gives his children a good quality of living but does not infringe on his own quality of life with his new partner. Surely that is not a lot to ask?!! After all, he is doing the extra work to provide for his family and if the PWC works and wants to save for something then she has the opportunity of either doing overtime if available or getting a part time job if she wants but the NRP wouldn't be entitled to any of that (quite rightly so) So why should the NRP be penalised in this way? The PWC also gets benefits from the state for help with childcare, WFTC, CTC. Does the NRP ask for a % of this? NO. The PWC can better herself if she wants to and will not be penalised for this but the NRP can't, without being penalised. It is not fair but I understand that it is the law. We are just trying to point out that the system is WRONG. And as I said to master99 (troll!!) Everyones situation on here is as important to them as yours is to you, so please don't shoot the messenger, we are only trying to point out the many flaws in the system.

I'm not trying to shoot the messenger. Yest the system is flawed and I agree there will be Nrp's that pay way more than they should be. This should be looked into by the CSA too.
Not everyone gets WFTC though and the CTC are obviously used towards childcare (and that doesn't cover the total amount that has to be spent on care as you'll probably know).
Nobody should be stopped to try and make a good life for themselves, but their children need to be priority.

aussiesbird

Banana23 wrote: »

I'm not trying to shoot the messenger. Yest the system is flawed and I agree there will be Nrp's that pay way more than they should be. This should be looked into by the CSA too.
Not everyone gets WFTC though and the CTC are obviously used towards childcare (and that doesn't cover the total amount that has to be spent on care as you'll probably know).
Nobody should be stopped to try and make a good life for themselves, but their children need to be priority.

I was not aiming my post at you personally I am speaking generally.
With regard to the points you raised.
One group of people that won't get working families tax credits will be where the adult family members don't work. However, they will be claiming benefits from the state anyhow so the amount of mainenence from the CSA will be restricted by that.
"CTC are obviously used towards childcare (and that doesn't cover the total amount that has to be spent on care as you'll probably know)."
I personally don't get CTC but are you suggesting that the government should pay for all the childcare?!!
That would mean that a PWC would be entitled to go out to work and earn as much as they could, get child maintenece from the NRP (rightly so, at a fair rate!) and get all their child care costs paid for!! And the CSA would only base their calculations on the NRP - hardly fair is it?
The CSA need to readdress their regulations with regard to NRP.

dorks

Zara33 wrote: »

Kelloggs might work for the CSA but she is a person with a vast amount of knowledge and she will help anyone.
I also doubt the CSA make NPR's suicidal there has to be something there before hand.

Just out of curiosity, can you refer me to a thread where she has helped a NRP? From the posts I have seen, she is INCREDIBLY anti NRPs? I watch these threads with interest, but rarely comment as it is not a particularly helpful board - more of a place for a place for people to vent their anger (and I am not just being anti PWC here - e.g. I also think Master99 - the ultimate venter of "his" anger - is well over the top)

There are a few helpful comments but there is ALWAYS a large discussion as well whereby posts from PWCs are slagged off by NRPs and vice versa so the people seeking help are always ending up feeling annoyed and having to defend themselves. The OP most of the time is just asking for help - not opinions. I wish the moderator would do something about moving some of the more aggressive/unhelfpul posts out of this whole board and perhaps into the discussion board.

...and I am under absolutely no illusion that I wont get some form of aggressive response back to this which will probably wind me up and draw me into some petty war of words, but hey, I have said my piece.

DJoiner

Elle83 wrote: »

Sorry I wasted an hour of my time supporting you Djoiner. If you genuinely believed £200pm was enough to support 2 children on then I don't understand why you've been giving your ex £800pm of your own free will.

Child maintenance is not pocket money contrary to a lot of absent parents' beliefs. Every child needs a stable home therefore where there isn't joint custody, the parent with care picks up the tab to provide this.

As I explained before, I have allowed my ex this money until she got herself on her feet - which they now are. Now that she is to be married, I do not feel responsible for my ex's well being, and i refuse to contribute towards it. My children on the other hand will always have everything they need - and no one could accuse me of being an absent parent.

Kelloggs - when I said contribution I meant a financial one, and I still believe its unfair that a mother is not expected to finance her children if she is working and can afford to. Her physical contribution towards looking after the children is no greater than mine as I have them half the time. School uniform, holidays etc are all things that I pay for and while I agree that peak months, christmas and birthdays, will go over the £200 mark - there is no need for any child to have multiple games consoles and two different bmx bikes so in the case of my ex, i'm afraid this doesn't hold.

I have only just logged in after making these comments to find 3 abusive pms from angry mothers who do not know anything about my circumstances, and I cannot believe how judgmental people can be - thank you to those whose advice helped me, esp kellogs, but i will not be returning to this man hating forum again.