Maintenance help?!!

eve31

DUTR wrote: »

The point you have missed is that the whole system was not created for you and your case alone.
I admire the fact the child is seeking to work rather than depend on the state , I have never said I begrudge the usual contribution. I do begrudge irresponsible PWC's who spoil and expect the offspring to be spoilt and the NRP is to pick up the tab, don't you feel getting to and from further education is more important than other uneccesary spending? As mentioned it's about priorities.

The point was the nrp enquring about stopping maintenance when a 16 year old gets a job. Good on that 16 year old I say, but my point was they still need supporting financially with regard to food, clothes, supporting education, travel to, dinner money, uniform, text books and revision quides, and in my case paying for tuition to remove barriers from learning for my daughter who has a disability.

How you have come to the conclusion that I'm missing the point that I think the whole system was created for me and my case alone is absurd. How can that be the case when I don't receive maintenance is beyond me.

DUTR

eve31 wrote: »

The point was the nrp enquring about stopping maintenance when a 16 year old gets a job.

This was the original query.

Good on that 16 year old I say, but my point was they still need supporting financially with regard to food, clothes, supporting education, travel to, dinner money, uniform, text books and revision quides,


and as I mentioned earlier we all know that already

and in my case paying for tuition to remove barriers from learning for my daughter who has a disability.

How you have come to the conclusion that I'm missing the point that I think the whole system was created for me and my case alone is absurd. How can that be the case when I don't receive maintenance is beyond me.

Simple.... just look at what you wrote in red and have hinted on it in many posts.
I am not defending your evasive NRP, however it would be interesting to hear his side of things, I can tell you from my side, that whilst the PWC(in my case is playing the system) then I will only contribute the standard 15% it is less wasted money, I'm quite certain they will drop out of college as soon as possible.

eve31

DUTR wrote: »

Simple.... just look at what you wrote in red and have hinted on it in many posts.
I am not defending your evasive NRP, however it would be interesting to hear his side of things, I can tell you from my side, that whilst the PWC(in my case is playing the system) then I will only contribute the standard 15% it is less wasted money, I'm quite certain they will drop out of college as soon as possible.

Am I missing something, what has what I wrote in red got to do with the NRP's side of the story? what has that got to do with your ex playing the system. I have no idea what you are getting at.

I work hard to support my daughters and provide all they need and I am proud to say my both my daughters achieve highly academically, my daughter who is registered blind is an inspiration to me and many who meet her not many blind students take science based A'Levels she is a real trailblazer and has faced many barriers to her learning, hence the need for a tutor.

The NRP is a limited company director who has diverted income to avoid paying maintenance and I was told by him that if I didn't stay with him he would not support the children.

I really shouldn't have to defend myself, but only commented to say maintenance should still be paid when a student stays on at school. Whether they have a job or not. Staying on at school would indicate sixth form which is A'Levels. For each hour of contact time in lessons it is expected that students match that with independent study at home, in addition many sixth forms have an agreement in place that students do not work more than 20 hours a week due to the commitment needed for A'Levels. They are a huge step up from GCSE's.

DUTR

eve31 wrote: »

Am I missing something, what has what I wrote in red got to do with the NRP's side of the story? what has that got to do with your ex playing the system. I have no idea what you are getting at.

Stop adding bits, ther NRP's side is seperate to what was asked.

I work hard to support my daughters and provide all they need and I am proud to say my both my daughters achieve highly academically, my daughter who is registered blind is an inspiration to me and many who meet her not many blind students take science based A'Levels she is a real trailblazer and has faced many barriers to her learning, hence the need for a tutor.

Why are you telling us that?
The NRP is a limited company director who has diverted income to avoid paying maintenance and I was told by him that if I didn't stay with him he would not support the children.

Well sometimes they say it all comes as a package, can't just take the good bits.
I really shouldn't have to defend myself, but only commented to say maintenance should still be paid when a student stays on at school. Whether they have a job or not. Staying on at school would indicate sixth form which is A'Levels. For each hour of contact time in lessons it is expected that students match that with independent study at home, in addition many sixth forms have an agreement in place that students do not work more than 20 hours a week due to the commitment needed for A'Levels. They are a huge step up from GCSE's.

We have all got our stories of woe.
To me, there is no point you fighting against your ex for contribution, as then you can hand on heart say you done it all on your own.
We all know about the costs of upbringing and the value of having that piece of paper with qualifications that follow the holder until their grave.

eve31

DUTR wrote: »

We have all got our stories of woe.
To me, there is no point you fighting against your ex for contribution, as then you can hand on heart say you done it all on your own.
We all know about the costs of upbringing and the value of having that piece of paper with qualifications that follow the holder until their grave.

I still haven't got a clue what your problem is, you make antagonistic comments such as the point is the I have missed the whole system wasn't created for me and referenced my daughter's disability and tuition. You are alluding to something but I really don't know what.

You constantly reference your daughter and her material belongings in this and previous posts and what your ex having a tattoo has got to do with a 16 year old getting a job while in education.

I won't be commenting further on this post. As it has been established that 16/17 year olds staying on in school for further education are still costly to raise and legally the NRP should still pay maintenance.

DUTR

eve31 wrote: »

I still haven't got a clue what your problem is, you make antagonistic comments such as the point is the I have missed the whole system wasn't created for me and referenced my daughter's disability and tuition. You are alluding to something but I really don't know what.

You constantly reference your daughter and her material belongings in this and previous posts and what your ex having a tattoo has got to do with a 16 year old getting a job while in education.

I won't be commenting further on this post. As it has been established that 16/17 year olds staying on in school for further education are still costly to raise and legally the NRP should still pay maintenance.

You don't understand perhaps being to you being cantankerous.
I never mentioned your daughter's disability, I never knew until you mentioned it.
I'm not alluding to anything, but sometimes one has to accept that one is not always correct or that every reader will agree with your side of a story alone.
My comment on material things and a body full of tattoo's instead of ensuring that the offspring's contrbutions are used wisely eg getting educated , only the OP asked about if having a job reduced their liability to submit child support contrbutions.
Let's see if you can ever respond to a posting without whining about your ex not putting his contrbutions forward.

Bluemeanie_2

:cool:

DUTR wrote: »

The point you have missed is that the whole system was not created for you and your case alone.
I admire the fact the child is seeking to work rather than depend on the state , I have never said I begrudge the usual contribution. I do begrudge irresponsible PWC's who spoil and expect the offspring to be spoilt and the NRP is to pick up the tab, don't you feel getting to and from further education is more important than other uneccesary spending? As mentioned it's about priorities.

a bit off topic but this is how I always felt about Hubby's PWC. She can't afford to take the kids on holiday (allegedly) or learn to drive (so we have to do all the running around, or let the kids go to clubs but yet has just spend over a thousand pounds on a Huskie puppy. After we are already looking over the Border Collie she threw out 7 years ago when she got bored. I know how much my Dog costs to keep and insure. My Stepdaughter has over two double wardrobes full of designer clothes still with the tags still on, that then get sold on on eBay for pence.
But then when we take the kids on a caravan holiday once a year we get slagged off saying he should pay more maintenance etc and he doesn't know the reality of how much kids costs etc. I can't help it if we have different priorities and I don't get into debt for clothes and shoes and designer pushchairs.

I genuinely believe that even if he paid £2k maintenance a month it wouldn't get spent on activities and holidays, it would be frittered on clothes and rubbish. And in effect as they wouldn't take any benefits off her it would be "extra" money.