What does maintenance supposed to cover

ukwineman

What is it actually supposed to pay for??

I pay my monthy amount and my ex has started to ask for contributions to school trips, cubs and additional sports activities.

I have no wish to see my children deprived of doing these things, but is that not what I'm paying her for anyway as this is what I'm led to believe. I will probable still contribute extra anyway if I can afford it but would like to know where the legal stand point on this is please.

Thanks

enemes

That's a tricky one ... it is supposed to provide for reasonable living costs. But what does "reasonable living costs" constitute? I suppose Mrs Beckam's "reasonable living costs" are one thing, and you and mine are another.

Maybe you can suggest to your ex that you could pay directly to these other activities/clubs. In that way, you are involved to a point, but you know where your money is going.

If you do this blindly, an unscrupolous ex may have you paying for weekly golf, skiing, hot-air ballooning etc, so better to be gaurded at first.

stressed_eric_4

kellogs has answered this query before and (dont quote me though) csa is for the upkeep of the child and the nrp should not have to pay any more money to the pwc, the maintenance is for things like food/clothes/trips etc. i appreciate its hard but sometimes you cant pay for everything no matter how much you want to. there are some pwc who see the nrp as a walking wallet "he only pays me £x etc" but then they forget to add the child benefit/child tax credits/ housing benefit etc some pwc seem to forget that the child is theres too and they should also be contribuiting financially but the same can also be said of the bad/nasty nrps out there that dont pay anything or want anything to do with their child. as i've said before being a parent is not all aobut financial support its also about the emotional support something many nrp/pwc forget,

kelloggs36

Absolutely Stressed Eric. Where an amount is set there should be no expectation for the other parent to pay more as they are already contributing. If they WANT to and can afford to then that is a matter for themselves.

tsstss7

ukwineman wrote: »

What is it actually supposed to pay for??

I pay my monthy amount and my ex has started to ask for contributions to school trips, cubs and additional sports activities.

I have no wish to see my children deprived of doing these things, but is that not what I'm paying her for anyway as this is what I'm led to believe. I will probable still contribute extra anyway if I can afford it but would like to know where the legal stand point on this is please.

Thanks

Hi Ukwineman

As a PWC I receive a CSA payment from the ex and have given up asking for contributions towards such extra's as I always get the standard "I already pay....blah, blah" I now work full time so it is not such an issue but when I was on IS I didn't get any of this money over and above basic benefit entitlement so the plain fact is WHAT I COULDNT AFFORD TO PAY FOR DS DIDNT GET!!! so there were no music lessons, out of school clubs etc

The fact is that it is up to you if you want to contribute towards a particular activity - of course you dont have to - and neither does your ex
but that will probably mean that if your ex is hard up then your child will not get to do these "extras".

If you are really just worried about the legalities of it all - dont be, you dont legally have to pay anything more.

As a compromise I'd suggest you pick an activity you dont mind funding and pay directly - that way you can see the benefit to your child without worrying about paying extra as such. Also it might mean she stops asking for contributions if you are already "doing your bit " so to speak. Also if your ex is on benefits they could class any money you give her towards things as extra income which could have implications anyway - so if you are going to pay for activities it is not in her interests to actually recieve the money from you - you are better off organising and paying for it yourself.

stressed_eric_4

granted tsstss7, but a lot of the time the csa take that much off the nrp that they can not afford to pay anymore, i know that in cases of i/s the pwc will only receive an extra £10 but the nrp is still minus his/her 15-25% of the net income. i agree that if they can afford to pay extra it is far better for the nrp to pay for an activity direct, then the child can also see that the nrp is paying for something for them, not all pwc tell their children that the nrp pays £x towards thei upkeep etc, i know mine certainly didn't until i mentioned it to her and the fact that becasue they'd used the 13 week loophole it meant my payments doubled well nearly trebled so i could no longer pay for all i did for her whilst she was at mine. unfortunately my ex is of the attitude of "its not my problem", i still pay for a few things but is has definatley been scaled down.