Advanced search

Is this true? WARNING DM link "Fathers to be hit by rise in maintenance..."

(219 Posts)
TotalBummer Fri 07-Dec-12 14:24:43

If it is, we are going to be in the sh!t AGAIN. Merry Christmas to all those Fathers who actually pay through the nose and can't afford to look after the family they have living with them AND we have our Child Tax credits taken off us to give to his ex who never let him see his DD in the first place.

I know there will be Mums out there who are shafted by their exes but it is ones like my DP and my kids who are being destroyed by the CSA. Bankruptcy looms.

Sorry - It just never ends. Money, money, money. They will take our house and our kids will be on the street and they DON'T CARE!

Arisbottle Sat 08-Dec-12 12:01:18

I agree with Xenia and it isn't often I can say that

Xenia Sat 08-Dec-12 12:13:49

I am not sexist. I don't think anyone should have children they cannot afford. Also my last comment was that the parent who is not resident can choose not to work (plenty choose this) and their new wife or husband only works so that they avoid the requirement to pay support to the first family.

I can see both sides' points of views in these cases. The main problem is that when you try to pay for two households not one is it is very expensive for most people. My children's father has paid nothing for 9 years (I earn more) and that is not as big an issue as lack of contact with the children. Part of the reason his divorce settlement wasn egotiated to be so high was apparently in case he wanted to take the children on the same standard of holidays as when we were married but no holidays, virtually no contact, no staying. His loss really but not that unusual.

I still think the basic principle whether you are male or female that first families come first is best to go by. Children don't choose for their parents to divorce and they are very expensive on a day to day basis if they live with you much more so than on the absent person who does not have daily demands for new shoes, money for school and all the rest of it.

Pantomimedam Sun 09-Dec-12 15:43:37

Xenia does have a point - if you have a family with someone who already has children, you know you are going to have to cut your cloth accordingly.

Xenia Sun 09-Dec-12 18:31:52

..which is why many would not touch someone with a barge pole who already had children unless they cannot find anyone better I suppose. Anyway it certainly means your obligations increase and plenty of second wives help pay for and indeed love and help bring up the step children. The step child of Kelly Hoppen was in the press yesterday as she is going very well in her career and put it down to her step mother's work ethic and how much she learned from her and when I read that I thought how lovely that a step parent can be such a bonus to a child rather than a nuisance or financial millstone around the family.

tittytittyhanghang Sun 09-Dec-12 19:05:53

which is why many would not touch someone with a barge pole who already had children unless they cannot find anyone better I suppose Thank god dp doesn't think like this, or i'd have been doomed to forever singledom!

Jesus xenia, you are getting worse.

Arisbottle Sun 09-Dec-12 19:23:43

I think you should think very carefully before getting involved with someone who already has children because you are always going to come second and the needs of your children will have to be balanced with the needs of the children that already exist .

I love my DH dearly but I thought long and hard before marrying him for that reason .In the early days it did cause tension .

SledsImOn Mon 10-Dec-12 07:18:42

If you look at the threads that come up fairly frequently on here regarding who you love the most, put first and would save in a house fire, the answers from about 95% of ALL the parents who respond are the same: my children.

That isn't just the single parents, or those who have remarried and had children before doing so. It's just about everyone who has ever had a child.

So I don't agree that you need to be especially aware of the children coming first when hooking up with someone who already has some. It just means they won't be your children, but that's an entirely different thing to bear in mind and for different reasons.

SledsImOn Mon 10-Dec-12 07:20:58

What I mean is, you sahould be aware that ANY children you might have with someone, either as a step parent or a natural parent, will likely come before you do.

So if you don't want to come second, don't have children with the person you marry/are with, and obviously, don't marry/be with someone who already has them.

niceguy2 Mon 10-Dec-12 12:50:05

I don't think anyone should have children they cannot afford.

I hate this phrase. When I had my DC's I was living together with their mother. We could afford our kids easily. But shit happens. We split up. Luckily I was able to afford to bring the kids up without state help but then I earn a good salary. Many are not as lucky as I am.

Nobody or should I say very very few people actively have a child as a lifestyle choice. I used to be quite active in the lone parent world and met a lot of single mum's. The vast VAST majority had kids in loving relationships or thought they were and dumped shortly after.

That said, to dissuade those very few who do see motherhood as a full time career, we should limit benefits paid for kids to a certain number. Personally I favour three being the limit. But we're going off the point.

The topic is maintenance. Is it fair that father's are asked to pay more. And the answer to that is it depends which side of the fence you are on. To the father and his new family. No. To his old family, yes.

SantaIAmSoFuckingRock Mon 10-Dec-12 13:14:05

i think there should be a minimum payment for each child regardless of salary/income. the same way they work out how much is needed as a living wage they should work out the lowest amount it costs to keep a child per week/month and then halved. the NRP pays half and the PWC pays the other half. and it should not be reduced for every child you have. same amount for every child. if you earn more you pay more but if you are below a certain threshold you still pay the minimum amount that is standard accross the country.

SantaIAmSoFuckingRock Mon 10-Dec-12 13:15:11

and i dont mean a fiver a week as the minimum.

Xenia Mon 10-Dec-12 13:48:28

If we ensured each parent had the chidlren half the time so had to pay for their childcare when they were with them and halved child benefit and tax credits for those lucky enough to get them (I never had a tax credit and my child benefit is going entirely) between the couple it would all be a lot fairer. I don't dispute that our court order which says whoever the children live with I pay 5 sets of school and/or university fees as that reflects the fact I earn a lot more, but I do think a huge number of athers have children with one mother and then go off to breed with another woman and have a number of total chidlren they would never in a month of sundays had with woman number 1 on costs grounds and think they can then walk into the sunset leaving the first children unsupported because they are all lovey dovey with wife number 2 whom they have to keep happy and all their priority transfers to chidlren with wife number 2 (and obviously you can reverse the sexes where it is the mother who leaves) is unfair.

Also this is why women should never give up full time work nor men let them even if they quite like the ego feelings of supporting a housewife or the comfort of having someone to iron their shirts as it never pays long term and means on a split one or other of you is impoverished.

tittytittyhanghang Mon 10-Dec-12 13:54:35

Santa, and if ctc are claimed, should it be divvied up equally between both parents then since each are contributing half of the childs upbringing costs?

Ive never claimed csa so not sure how it works. Does it take into account all the nrp household income (i.e. the nrp partners income?) and vice versa, does it take account of the rp household income ?

tittytittyhanghang Mon 10-Dec-12 13:58:27

I dont think anyone agrees with feckless parents (men usually) who have hordes of children with different woman, whilst not being able to contribute financially towards any of them. But its a bit hard saying a man shouldn't have a second family if he can't afford the first, as I don't hear anyone saying that the rp (usually the mum) shouldn't go on to have any more children if/when she meets someone new. I dont get the distinction between the two?

SantaIAmSoFuckingRock Mon 10-Dec-12 14:05:18

no titty as CTC would be paid to the PWC and their shar of the 'half' would come out of that. if CTC were being split between teh two parent's then tehy would have to be worked out based on both household incomes. CTC atr only worked out based on the PWC household income and son the NRP's income has not being taken into account, therefore they should not be receiving any of the CTC.

CSA calculations are made based on the NRP's income, this does not include their partner's salary but will include WTC/CTC that are paid into the household. CSA does not take into account the PWC income (as they are already providing for their child. it is the NRP who isn't/isn't paying enough)

SantaIAmSoFuckingRock Mon 10-Dec-12 14:08:48

"But its a bit hard saying a man shouldn't have a second family if he can't afford the first, as I don't hear anyone saying that the rp (usually the mum) shouldn't go on to have any more children if/when she meets someone new."

well if she can't afford it then obviously it wouldn't be sensible to have more children with a new partner. however i will point out that if it is the mum who is PWC and she goes on to have another child she cant afford, she is unlikely to stop paying to feed and clothe her first child, more likely she will go without herself to make up for the cost of the new baby.

Pantomimedam Mon 10-Dec-12 14:19:20

If someone can't afford their existing children of course it's ridiculous to have more! That's not harsh, it's a fact.

Its sad that when a family breaks down the nrp seems to be able to alter there priorities depending on where their children live.

I cant understand how anyone could find some of their children are more important than the others.


OptimisticPessimist Mon 10-Dec-12 14:55:02

"But its a bit hard saying a man shouldn't have a second family if he can't afford the first, as I don't hear anyone saying that the rp (usually the mum) shouldn't go on to have any more children if/when she meets someone new."

If the only way the PWC can afford to have more children is to stop providing for their existing children, then no they shouldn't have more children. As Santa said though, it would be pretty unusual and unlikely for the PWC to stop providing for their children in those exact circumstances - and if they did they'd likely have their children removed and find themselves charged with neglect. Meanwhile, NRPs can have as many children as they like and as a result reduce their maintenance if the children are resident, or pay a lesser amount per family if they are all not residing with the NRP with the maximum being 25% of pay for 3 or more children, regardless of how many "3 or more" actually is. Hardly equal.

Xenia Tue 11-Dec-12 18:31:54

Yes, first families come first. It is the same in long marriages. If you both cannot afford that third child you don't have it, you don't instead say okay we won't buy clothes or food for the first two children, instead we will spend our money on the new baby which is what a lot of these absent parents in effect say. There was one on the radio today where mother with 4 children had moved in a new man and they had 2 more children together and were complaining it was so hard to live BUT no one forced her to have children 5 and 6.

Xenia Tue 11-Dec-12 18:32:38

Yes, they were saying they had been "good" because they married and lived together rather than pretending they did not and claiming benefits as if they were some kind of noble couple doing their best. Instead they were having loads of children they could afford and then moaning about it.

RacHoHoHog Tue 11-Dec-12 19:37:11

I have my children, dp has his child, he has a private arrangement and pays his ex. We both work although low income.
We moved in together and claim tax credits as we are entitled.
If his ex now went to the csa, would she now be entitled to a portion of the tax credits that are supposed to help for my children?

SantaIAmSoFuckingRock Wed 12-Dec-12 09:42:55

yes rachohohog because your tax credits are calculated based on your joint incomes and how many children are living with you, so this would be seen as making up part of his income as his salary is taken into account when working out your award.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now