Child maintenance payments to child

swingaloo

You sound very angry and resentful of your ex and talking about 'giving her an ultimatum' isnt doing you any favours. 
The parental alienation will get worse if you start throwing ultimatums around. She is not a 'woman extracting money from her ex husband' she is a woman who presumably you loved enough at one time to have a child with. SHE is entitled to financial help from you to raise that child. If you want to give your child money for herself then do so but dont try to justify taking it from the other parent. 

Whatever you think of the mum, her new partner, her money, her way of dealing with money, the way she is bringing up your child is not a reason to try to avoid paying her maintenance. You  are obliged to pay maintenance until your child finishes education and giving it directly to your child is not paying maintenance.
No court is going to approve that. 

Look at it this way- If the ex decides to go out and have her nails, hair, lips, tattoos or whatever the minute she gets the maintenance and spends the lot on herself, she still has to keep a roof over your childs head and pay for all the other costs associated with raising the child.  If she won millions on the lottery next week you would still need to pay maintenance.

My husband used to pay the money to his ex every Saturday when we picked the child up. She would snatch the money off him and when we returned the child home she would be flashing the carrier bags and showing us the new clothes she had bought- for herself.
It's galling but it's irrelevant. She still had to feed, clothe and keep the child warm from her own money.

How much money she had was not our business. She had frequent holidays while we went without for some years. That's life when you are the none resident parent.

elsanto

marcia_ said:

elsanto said:

elsien said:

elsanto said:

elsien said:

Sibling did that, but only when the child went to university as the agreement was to pay until they had  finished education. He would not have done it while the child was under 18.

There was a court order, however he was banking on the fact that she would not go back to court because the money was clearly been used to benefit the now adult, this was the child’s preference to pay for housing et cetera. and the person was rarely at his mother’s house anymore. 

Your situation is different because the mother is clearly paying to house, feed and clothe the child still, regardless of your opinion of her financial skills. And as long as your child is adequately housed closed and fed etc, it’s not your business how that money is spent.

And if you are concerned about parental alienation, mother complaining to daughter that you have stopped paying for her is not going to help.

You did not read what I wrote. It IS my business hoe my money is spent on my daughter. And the mother's parental alienation is already there, it would not be new.

I did read what you said but it is not unfair on the non-resident parent to have to pay a contribution to the other parent towards their child's upkeep, whether the NRP is a man or woman. And regardless of how much other money is coming into the house - that is the system that we have. 
Ref your court query, in my sibling's case maintenance was agreed through a court order as part of the divorce financial consent order as agreement was not able to be reached any other way. This may be different to your situation. 

Well, that is it, an agreement was not made so I will have to go to court and present my arguments.

 No Court will accept your argument that mother has more money than you so you shouldn't have to pay, you fathered a child and have a responsibility in Law to provide for that child until they leave education. 

 

That is just the wishful thinking of a woman who very likely wants to extract as much money from her ex-husband as possible.

elsanto

Spendless said:

elsien said:

elsanto said:

elsien said:

Sibling did that, but only when the child went to university as the agreement was to pay until they had  finished education. He would not have done it while the child was under 18.

There was a court order, however he was banking on the fact that she would not go back to court because the money was clearly been used to benefit the now adult, this was the child’s preference to pay for housing et cetera. and the person was rarely at his mother’s house anymore. 

Your situation is different because the mother is clearly paying to house, feed and clothe the child still, regardless of your opinion of her financial skills. And as long as your child is adequately housed closed and fed etc, it’s not your business how that money is spent.

And if you are concerned about parental alienation, mother complaining to daughter that you have stopped paying for her is not going to help.

You did not read what I wrote. It IS my business hoe my money is spent on my daughter. And the mother's parental alienation is already there, it would not be new.

I did read what you said but it is not unfair on the non-resident parent to have to pay a contribution to the other parent towards their child's upkeep, whether the NRP is a man or woma should n. And regardless of how much other money is coming into the house - that is the system that we have. 
Ref your court query, in my sibling's case maintenance was agreed through a court order as part of the divorce financial consent order as agreement was not able to be reached any other way. This may be different to your situation. 

No, it's not unfair. You are the parent too so you should contribute to child's upkeep. Why should Mum bear 100% of the costs involved regardless of how much she earns. 

Its also not possible for a child to live at home and not cost the RP anything. They eat, need clothing, use utilities, need a lift somewhere or something replacing etc. 

I did not come here to hear support for the mother by women. I came here to find out about a possible legal mechanism to bypass the mother in supporting my child.,

marcia_

elsanto said:

Spendless said:

elsien said:

elsanto said:

elsien said:

Sibling did that, but only when the child went to university as the agreement was to pay until they had  finished education. He would not have done it while the child was under 18.

There was a court order, however he was banking on the fact that she would not go back to court because the money was clearly been used to benefit the now adult, this was the child’s preference to pay for housing et cetera. and the person was rarely at his mother’s house anymore. 

Your situation is different because the mother is clearly paying to house, feed and clothe the child still, regardless of your opinion of her financial skills. And as long as your child is adequately housed closed and fed etc, it’s not your business how that money is spent.

And if you are concerned about parental alienation, mother complaining to daughter that you have stopped paying for her is not going to help.

You did not read what I wrote. It IS my business hoe my money is spent on my daughter. And the mother's parental alienation is already there, it would not be new.

I did read what you said but it is not unfair on the non-resident parent to have to pay a contribution to the other parent towards their child's upkeep, whether the NRP is a man or woma should n. And regardless of how much other money is coming into the house - that is the system that we have. 
Ref your court query, in my sibling's case maintenance was agreed through a court order as part of the divorce financial consent order as agreement was not able to be reached any other way. This may be different to your situation. 

No, it's not unfair. You are the parent too so you should contribute to child's upkeep. Why should Mum bear 100% of the costs involved regardless of how much she earns. 

Its also not possible for a child to live at home and not cost the RP anything. They eat, need clothing, use utilities, need a lift somewhere or something replacing etc. 

I did not come here to hear support for the mother by women. I came here to find out about a possible legal mechanism to bypass the mother in supporting my child.,

 This is a public forum. Replies will be good bad or ugly you don't get to choose who replies to you. 

marcia_

elsanto said:

Spendless said:

elsien said:

elsanto said:

elsien said:

Sibling did that, but only when the child went to university as the agreement was to pay until they had  finished education. He would not have done it while the child was under 18.

There was a court order, however he was banking on the fact that she would not go back to court because the money was clearly been used to benefit the now adult, this was the child’s preference to pay for housing et cetera. and the person was rarely at his mother’s house anymore. 

Your situation is different because the mother is clearly paying to house, feed and clothe the child still, regardless of your opinion of her financial skills. And as long as your child is adequately housed closed and fed etc, it’s not your business how that money is spent.

And if you are concerned about parental alienation, mother complaining to daughter that you have stopped paying for her is not going to help.

You did not read what I wrote. It IS my business hoe my money is spent on my daughter. And the mother's parental alienation is already there, it would not be new.

I did read what you said but it is not unfair on the non-resident parent to have to pay a contribution to the other parent towards their child's upkeep, whether the NRP is a man or woma should n. And regardless of how much other money is coming into the house - that is the system that we have. 
Ref your court query, in my sibling's case maintenance was agreed through a court order as part of the divorce financial consent order as agreement was not able to be reached any other way. This may be different to your situation. 

No, it's not unfair. You are the parent too so you should contribute to child's upkeep. Why should Mum bear 100% of the costs involved regardless of how much she earns. 

Its also not possible for a child to live at home and not cost the RP anything. They eat, need clothing, use utilities, need a lift somewhere or something replacing etc. 

I did not come here to hear support for the mother by women. I came here to find out about a possible legal mechanism to bypass the mother in supporting my child.,

 Why do you feel you shouldn't provide for your childs day to day care? 

saajan_12

elsanto said:

elsien said:

Sibling did that, but only when the child went to university as the agreement was to pay until they had  finished education. He would not have done it while the child was under 18.

There was a court order, however he was banking on the fact that she would not go back to court because the money was clearly been used to benefit the now adult, this was the child’s preference to pay for housing et cetera. and the person was rarely at his mother’s house anymore. 

Your situation is different because the mother is clearly paying to house, feed and clothe the child still, regardless of your opinion of her financial skills. And as long as your child is adequately housed closed and fed etc, it’s not your business how that money is spent.

And if you are concerned about parental alienation, mother complaining to daughter that you have stopped paying for her is not going to help.

You did not read what I wrote. It IS my business hoe my money is spent on my daughter. And the mother's parental alienation is already there, it would not be new.

You may what that to be the case, but legally it is not. If the mother is rich enough, then perhaps she can afford to be irresponsible with her money. However responsible the daughter is, the reality is she is not paying for ALL her living costs eg rent, utilities, prescriptions, transport, mobile, food, etc. That is the priority for your child maintenance payments, not whatever the daughter wants to buy. Saving for college is optional, paying for a roof is mandatory. 

Andyjflet

HampshireH said:

Paying your child money is an allowance or pocket money 

Child maintenance is to contribute to the roof over their head, the bills and food as well as the things you mention such as courses/personal care and clothes.

Do you mean isnt an allowance? 

Andyjflet

elsanto said:

marcia_ said:

elsanto said:

I have been making payments to my child's mother's bank account and now I want to pay my child directly. Does anybody know if it is possible? This could be done in a number of ways:
a) Pay into child's savings (Child Trust Fund) or current account.
b) Changing the Direct Debit from the mother's account to another thing that needs to be paid regularly.
c) Getting a list of things my child needs, I buy them and get them sent to her (or memberships, courses, etc)

The reasons:

1- My child is now 16.

2- The mother is totally irresponsible and greedy with money. The maintenance payments are wasted with her.
3- My child would know that her dad is taking care of her because the mother will not tell her about the child maintenance I pay and she has a parental alienation campaign with her. This is damaging.

4- My child is 2 to 3 years away from college and she is certainly going to need the money.

5- My child can start learning about taking care and being responsible with her money, which she will not learn from the mother.
I am giving the reasons, here, in case I have to give them to the CMS or tribunal.

 Child maintenance is paid so the resident parent can pay to raise your child. Paying it into a child's account won't allow them to do that. 

I have already clearly said that my child is now 16 and, at that age, she is already more responsible than the mother. She can buy things that she needs with the money.
The CMS refuse to accept the information I gave them that the mother does not need my money. Between the money she got from me in Ancillary Relief and her new husband's money, she has about 4 times the money I have.

Doesnt matter, the payment is to contribute to the upbringing of your child, regardless how much money her or her new husband has, been through it myself. The cost of living, food, bills, transport, school etc etc probably far outweighs what you contribute. 

I paid £500 a month for ten years, I understood what the payment was for. 

Exodi

I understand there is a lot of emotion and anger behind this OP, but you're acting irrationally (and this is coming from a man, which apparently matters to you).

Maintenance is for things like your daughters food, shelter, etc, things which are unlikely to be contributed to if you sent the money directly to your daughter (and let's be honest, if the mother asked your daughter for money towards these things, you'd have a big issue with that). This is obviously about point scoring against the mother, it's plain to see.

You've (presumably) paid maintenance until she's 16 years old, why all the drama now?
 
FWIW, you likened trying to negotiate with the mother as "like trying to negotiate with Putin" (I think suggesting it's her way or the highway), yet everything you've said in this thread shows that the similie may best be attributed to you. E.g:

"giving her an ultimatum saying that I am now going to pay my child directly and that is it"

"Well, that is it, an agreement was not made so I will have to go to court and present my arguments."

And that's not considering she doesn't need to negotiate with you on child maintenance, you are obliged to pay it for your daughter. It doesn't surprise me she is uncompromising, she doesn't need to be, it is you that is being unreasonable.

elsien

Andyjflet said:

HampshireH said:

Paying your child money is an allowance or pocket money 

Child maintenance is to contribute to the roof over their head, the bills and food as well as the things you mention such as courses/personal care and clothes.

Do you mean isnt an allowance? 

No, I don’t think they did mean that. They were saying that paying a child directly counts as an allowance/pocket money rather than the child maintenance that goes for their general care and upkeep. Two different payments for two different things.