Relying on child support

copperclock

(I decided to put this here rather than in the Benefits section as it seems like that area is more for advice than discussion, but please do move if preferred).

Ok, so I'm having some issues receiving child support at the moment. Previously it had been erratic but more or less monthly. Now it seems to have stopped for the time being. CSA are trying to deal with it and I guess it'll come when it comes.

But anyway, it got me thinking: I kind of rely on the child support. Luckily, it's not a huge portion of our household income but, if I were to continue not to receive it, we would have to adjust some things (possibly starting with how much we spend on birthday presents! But, you know, it would have a knock on effect on other things.

They do say that you shouldn't rely on child support in case it doesn't come, but is that really doable? Do those who receive child support on this board actually just see it as 'extra money', or do you count it in?

And what about those who pay child support? Do you see it as maintaining a certain kind of lifestyle for your children, counted into the bills, or should it be 'fun money' in a sense?

Just interested. :beer:

Guest101

You shouldn't rely on it as it can stop for a number of perfectly legitimate reasons.

copperclock

Guest101 wrote: »

You shouldn't rely on it as it can stop for a number of perfectly legitimate reasons.

Yes, I know. As I said above I know that you shouldn't rely on it. You're quite right. I was just wondering how many people truly don't rely on it.

You can look at it in the sense that if the parents were still in a relationship then they would indeed rely on that parent's income, just as everyone does. And then if that income were lost their lifestyle would have to adjust.

It's ideal, of course, in the case of child maintenance not to rely on it at all, but in the real world surely people must? It's there to help support the children, after all.

justme111

I think you are splitting hairs in semantics. I do not rely on child's support, I count on it but with leaving enough room for maneuver if it changes/stops.
Suppose some people could rely on it- if mother's income is really low and farher's is huge than it could account for most of her budget

Guest101

copperclock wrote: »

Yes, I know. As I said above I know that you shouldn't rely on it. You're quite right. I was just wondering how many people truly don't rely on it.

You can look at it in the sense that if the parents were still in a relationship then they would indeed rely on that parent's income, just as everyone does. And then if that income were lost their lifestyle would have to adjust.

It's ideal, of course, in the case of child maintenance not to rely on it at all, but in the real world surely people must? It's there to help support the children, after all.

My point is, if the NRP is killed, falls ill, made redundant, whatever.


Or you as the PWC fall ill and lose the children as you aren't able to look after them.


You need to have back up plans

copperclock

justme111 wrote: »

I think you are splitting hairs in semantics. I do not rely on child's support, I count on it but with leaving enough room for maneuver if it changes/stops.
Suppose some people could rely on it- if mother's income is really low and farher's is huge than it could account for most of her budget

Yes, I suppose there are degrees to which people rely on things. At one end of the scale, losing child support could mean cutting back on days out/holidays with the children, at the other end it could mean having to move to a smaller, cheaper home. Both families could describe themselves as 'relying'.

Seeing it as completely extra, almost 'surprise' money, or putting it all in long-term savings for the children, is optimum in terms of 'insuring' yourself, but I wonder how many people are really able to do that.

copperclock

Guest101 wrote: »

My point is, if the NRP is killed, falls ill, made redundant, whatever.


Or you as the PWC fall ill and lose the children as you aren't able to look after them.


You need to have back up plans

That's a really interesting point you make. I can't be any party to ensuring that the NRP has any form of life assurance in the same way that I might if we were still (in some horrible parallel universe) still together. I wonder if he has thought about whether anything would come to his children if he died.

Still, I think most of us rely on income that wouldn't be there in the case of redundancy/illness. Is child support different?

I don't understand the bit in bold??

Guest101

copperclock wrote: »

That's a really interesting point you make. I can't be any party to ensuring that the NRP has any form of life assurance in the same way that I might if we were still (in some horrible parallel universe) still together. I wonder if he has thought about whether anything would come to his children if he died.

Still, I think most of us rely on income that wouldn't be there in the case of redundancy/illness. Is child support different?

I don't understand the bit in bold??

The bit in bold is to say that if you became ill and unable to look after your children, the NRP would ideally look after them and ofcourse payments to you would stop


Well with redundancy you would get redundancy payment.
With illness you would possibly claim certain benefits and or get SSP
Child support is different because you're relying on the income of a 3rd party.

Rosemary7391

Interesting. I think in an ideal world you ought to be able to rely on it just as much as your would their wage when still together - so accounting for the probability of circumstances like redundancy or illness. What shouldn't happen, but I'm sure does, is the paying parent taking decisions that severely affect the other without any discussion. Of course they can jack in their job and go join the circus, but it wouldn't be right when they have responsibilities to their children. This is assuming that the maintenance that is due is paid of course, which again doesn't seem to always happen! I wish we could do more to insist on both parents supporting their children, financially and otherwise

copperclock

Guest101 wrote: »

The bit in bold is to say that if you became ill and unable to look after your children, the NRP would ideally look after them and ofcourse payments to you would stop


Well with redundancy you would get redundancy payment.
With illness you would possibly claim certain benefits and or get SSP
Child support is different because you're relying on the income of a 3rd party.

If I got ill I doubt the children would go to the other parent. If they did, though, then my living costs would reduce. I'd no longer need a big mortgage on a family home. My fuel bills and grocery bills would reduce. I wouldn't be paying for their phones or their pocket money. If I were that ill that my children got taken away I'd probably also not be driving so would reduce to one car. These reductions would offset the loss of child support many times over.

You're right, though. It is relying on a third party. Ideally it wouldn't be counted in at all, but I just wondered if anyone really was in the position that it was superflous. After all, the courts/CSA 'award' the money because it's required for looking after the children, not for disregarding.

Interestingly, our mortgage provider counted child support as income.

copperclock

Rosemary7391 wrote: »

Interesting. I think in an ideal world you ought to be able to rely on it just as much as your would their wage when still together - so accounting for the probability of circumstances like redundancy or illness. What shouldn't happen, but I'm sure does, is the paying parent taking decisions that severely affect the other without any discussion. Of course they can jack in their job and go join the circus, but it wouldn't be right when they have responsibilities to their children. This is assuming that the maintenance that is due is paid of course, which again doesn't seem to always happen! I wish we could do more to insist on both parents supporting their children, financially and otherwise

I think that this happens a fair amount. The paying parent - justified or not - feels that they can't stomach giving money to the receiving parent, and the 'it's for the children' connection is severed somewhere along the line.