Money Moral Dilemma: Is it fair to redistribute my kids' cash equally?

missbiggles1

gloriouslyhappy wrote: »

Originally posted by gloriouslyhappy


Jagraf - your MIL is very switched on indeed! Sometimes only the parent can decide what's best for the child, and if bills need paying, then using the child's money to pay those bills means giving that child a warm, safe home with plenty of good food to eat, and that has to be a good thing. I'm not talking about frivolous personal spending (frothy coffee and lipstick) but bills which are incurred maintaining the home.

In my relative's case, about the only thing the abusive ex ever provides for the children is extravagant presents of large and expensive toys, but never pays the maintenance on time, because, according to him, she 'spends it on rent'! Does he really, like one or two posters here, think children only need money spent on toys or trips rather than day to day surviving?

But that's a parents' responsibility to provide, either from their own earnings or from the generous child related benefits available to those who don't work or who are on a low income. To take the money given to the child by friends and relatives and use that to fulfill your own responsibilities as a parent seems to me to be very wrong. The only exception would be in direst emergency, in which case the money should be repaid to the child as soon as possible, just like any other loan from a family member.

missbiggles1

theoretica wrote: »

Doing it all that way seems a lost opportunity to help the child value their own education.

In your model what happens when money is given to a baby - it can't be spent until the kid is old enough to understand what money is? Is clutching a toy in a shop enough? Or the parent knowing what makes baby happy?

I consider letting some children spend medium to large sums of money on what they want, when they want, would be poor parenting. Depends on what they want. Plenty of kids would blow it all on tooth rotting or short lived toys and gadgets. The model I see as normal certainly until teenage is either kid or parent can say no to the spending - unless both say yes it doesn't happen.

That seems to me to be an excellent approach.

Jagraf

missbiggles1 wrote: »

But that's a parents' responsibility to provide, either from their own earnings or from the generous child related benefits available to those who don't work or who are on a low income. To take the money given to the child by friends and relatives and use that to fulfill your own responsibilities as a parent seems to me to be very wrong. The only exception would be in direst emergency, in which case the money should be repaid to the child as soon as possible, just like any other loan from a family member.

If you refer to maslows hierarchy of needs and put yourself in the position of a parent I would suggest food comes above luxury.

Sometimes decisions are made and the repayment is twentyfold.

missbiggles1

Jagraf wrote: »

If you refer to maslows hierarchy of needs and put yourself in the position of a parent I would suggest food comes above luxury.

Sometimes decisions are made and the repayment is twentyfold.

Of course it does but it's a parent's role to financially support the child, not the child's role to support the family.

If I were a grandparent, I might well give the parents money to help out through a difficult period but if they took the money that I'd given directly to my grandchild and used that, with no intention of paying it back, I would never give them another penny.

In fact, if I were ever to be in that situation, given some of the opinions expressed here, I'd make damn sure that any money I gave my grandchildren was put in an account to which the parents had no access.

Jagraf

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Of course it does but it's a parent's role to financially support the child, not the child's role to support the family.

If I were a grandparent, I might well give the parents money to help out through a difficult period but if they took the money that I'd given directly to my grandchild and used that, with no intention of paying it back, I would never give them another penny.

In fact, if I were ever to be in that situation, given some of the opinions expressed here, I'd make damn sure that any money I gave my grandchildren was put in an account to which the parents had no access.

Ok well my mother in law preferred to see us survive as a family.

duchy

silvercar wrote: »

The theory is you choose god parents who will be best at bringing up your child if you (and other parent) were no longer around, rather than who has the biggest bank balance.

I agree but if them giving unequal gifts matters to you then either it becomes part of the selection process or if you feel your children need identical bank balances you should be prepared to make up the difference yourself not take a gift given to one child and give it to another.

missbiggles1

Jagraf wrote: »

Ok well my mother in law preferred to see us survive as a family.

Do you mean that she gave you money to help you through a bad patch or that she didn't mind you taking the money she'd given to your children?

duchy

Jagraf wrote: »

She gives me my daughters pocket money and tells me to decide what to do with it. I have in the past, when really struggling, used it to pay bills. I.

Well that isn't pocket money - that's money for you .

The thought of taking a child's pocket money off them to pay bills seems a weird concept and quite upsetting for children. Surely pocket money is for them to choose what to spend it on - not for parents to decide they want it to pay bills.

If you were struggling and couldn't pay your way why on earth didn't your Mum just give you money direct instead of giving it to the children for you to take off of them - that sounds ridiculous .

TBagpuss

gloriouslyhappy wrote: »

I have a young relative who is a single mum struggling with two small children after leaving an abusive relationship. She's very proud and won't accept assistance except on the children's behalf, so I use christmas and birthdays as an excuse to give small cash gifts. But I state in so many words, as the children have plenty of toys, that the money is to be used for anything they need including rent, electricity and water etc utility bills, as this is all part of providing for them. They need a less-stressed mum more than they need another toy, and I would be horrified if the cash gift were spent just on the child whose birthday it was. Maybe later when circumstances change, the cash might be spent only on the one child, but right now, they need more practical help than a small sum in a bank account.

But the difference there is that you, is the giver, are making it very clear that you are giving a gift to the family, not to the individual child. If you gave money to the child and the mother took it that would be a different issue.

It's also different to the scenario which the OP raised, which was about taking money from child's savings and giving it to the other child.

What you are doing is a generous way to help out your relative while not making her feel bad.

If the OP was talking about borrowing from children's savings to pay for essential items like food, then *legally* that would still be very questionable, but morally it is more defensible.

missmoose

To put it simply NO!!!!!

You have no idea of their plans, for instance- lets say you have two children Bill is 14 and Jill is 8.
Bill received £20 from Uncle Fred for his last birthday but Jill only got £10 for hers, this might be because he plans on giving Jill £50 £100 or what ever for when she turns 10 or 13 as these can be seen as special birthdays. Fred may not have been in the financial situation to do this for Bill when he turned 10 or 13 so he is giving him more each birthday to make it fair in the long run.
Fred may have spent more on Jill for Christmas so is giving Bill the difference to make up for it again making it fair in the long run.

I'd have been livid if my granny sent me £20 in a card when I was a kid and my mum took £5 and said well it's only fair because your brother only got £15 for his birthday. As previous people have mentioned some people are closer to other members of family, now an adult I visit my granny regularly and my brother hasn't been in ages.

If this money isn't given for birthdays but it's given to you to give to them at a later date then I say put it in separate child investment funds that they get at 18 or 21, this way each account gets interest at different rates, at 18 or 21 they will understand that life isn't fair, no one will feel hard done to because they didn't get what was given to them and you can top it up as and wen you have money for those that don't get as much as the others.
My brother and I got one of these each to access at 21. I ended up opening mine at 19 (a year after my brother opened his at 21) I had more in mine, but he doesn't know what I had, and even if he did as it was an investments account and changes were due to the stock market he understood that it was just luck of the draw and I got lucky.