1.am I reasonable 2.childcare costs

Guest101

duchy wrote: »

Simple Maths

Your £250 a month doesn't cover even half of childcare for "your 2 weeks" - and the child still needs to be fed, watered clothed and housed year round - there's no such thing as a holiday from that !!

True, however it's not supposed to cover that either.


There are numerous additional benefits which an NRP is entitled to which will support some of that.


And the NRP herself is expected to put her hand in her pocket.


The OP is also responsible for the above for the 104 days he has his DD.


So the £3k he pays should be a percentage of the cost of care for 261 days of the year, with the NRP making up some of that and the rest of us supplementing it.

Guest101

duchy wrote: »

So what's the difference
The child still has 50% of your DNA - that didn't change when you split up.

But the OP does not have 50% care.

FBaby

Management can dictate when annual leave is taken. He doesn't really get a say in the matter if push comes to shove....

Ultimately, if they have come up to an arrangement that means holidays are shared in terms of care, it is not his ex's responsibility to be flexible just because of his work situation. However, for the sake of good relationship for the children, it would be nice to come up with a reasonable agreement that goes beyond each other's responsibility.

Of course, holiday clubs in not the only childcare available. Could any family members on either side help? How about friends? My ex was only a dad when it suited him and that didn't include holidays (except the days he had a right to have them), so childcare was my sole responsibility both in terms of arranging and paying. Due to the costs for two, I had to find other ways, so worked out with other parents a shift so that they would look after mine two days and I would look after them another. Not ideal when you would rather enjoy your time off with your children only, but it was all about making the best of the situation. The kids did enjoy the company, I got a bit more time for myself as they kept each other entertained and I still made sure to have one day off with just them and made it special.

Really it all comes down to how much effort you put into planning, something some non-resident parents don't see as their duty.

peachyprice

Guest101 wrote: »

Management can dictate when annual leave is taken. He doesn't really get a say in the matter if push comes to shove....

Yes, in some jobs, like my husbands. But OP hasn't said this is this case, has he.

duchy

Daddys.girl wrote: »

After reading my posts it does come across that were bad parents for not taking hols to look after dd. From my ex perspective it's loss of earnings,which I can somewhat understand, she is self employed so can pick and choose her hols,my perspective I get 5 weeks a year and can not pick and choose , I'm in a team of 6 and only 1 member can be off at any one time,so as you can imagine it's tricky to get all 5 weeks off non term time.i can not submit my holiday for untill 1St April, hence why I say I will try,

Hopefully if you can get in quickly it'll work out. In one sense you are lucky that your ex is self employed. Trying to get two sets of 2 weeks from two different employers in the summer holidays is twice as difficult.

Maybe think about booking something for October r Febuary half terms , Whitsun and Christmas now too ?

In some ways seperated parents have it slightly easier in that they don't take holidays away together so there's a bit more annual leave to stretch.

Guest101

peachyprice wrote: »

Yes, in some jobs, like my husbands. But OP hasn't said this is this case, has he.

No, no, in ALL jobs, management can dictate.


Just in some they choose not to.

FBaby

There are numerous additional benefits which an NRP is entitled to which will support some of that.

Do you mean the resident parent? I know most do claim tax credits and the rest but not all are eligible.

duchy

duchy wrote: »

So what's the difference
The child still has 50% of your DNA - that didn't change when you split up.

Guest101 wrote: »

But the OP does not have 50% care.

So you are saying if a parent doesn't have 50% care are they are less of a parent ?????

So any Father who works fulltime and the Mother is a SAHP -your logic says the Father is less of a parent than the Mother ???

And any parent who doesn't live with their child is less of a parent than one who does ????

Don't think you'll get many people agreeing with that theory !!!

Guest101

FBaby wrote: »

Do you mean the resident parent? I know most do claim tax credits and the rest but not all are eligible.

Sorry was typing this, but had a brain fart


There are numerous additional benefits which PWC, but not an NRP, is entitled to which will support some of that.

Guest101

duchy wrote: »

So you are saying if a parent doesn't have 50% care are they are less of a parent ?????

So any Father who works fulltime and the Mother is a SAHP -your logic says the Father is less of a parent than the Mother ???

And any parent who doesn't live with their child is less of a parent than one who does ????

Don't think you'll get many people agreeing with that theory !!!

What I'm saying is that the system in place has two distinct entities


the PWC and the NRP


The NRP pays a maintenance to the PWC which takes into account the time the child is in their care and the time he or she is not.


The PWC is expected to contribute financially to the child too.


AND the state supplements this.


The PWC is then required (as part of the ongoing payments, a contract if you will) to ensure the child is sufficiently looked after. If they are not able to meet those obligations there is option for the roles to swap.


In this case, given the PWC earns more than the NRP, it could be argued the child would be better supported by the additional funding provided by a higher earning NRP.


That's not the only argument, of course.


in reality, the situation is varying shades of grey. With parents matching leave and holidays and finances as best they can.


There's no point claiming the OP is a 50% parent, when quite clearly they have their child, for whatever reason 104 days a year.


The suggestion that the situation is fine during 39 weeks of the year, but isn't for the other 13 because the PWC is working, is not the NRPs issue.