to think that I am not 'lucky' or being 'ungrateful'

[BuskersCat]

Basically I asked DDs father to buy her some SHOES for pre-school, proper full shoes (colour doesn't matter at pre-school) XP bought Dd a pair of trainers, I thanked him for them, closed the front door and moaned at DP that he had bought trainers and that I'd have to swap them for shoes and make up the shortfall in price.

DP thinks I am being ungrateful and that I am lucky. I disagree, we get £61 a month from the CSA for dd, I thought the least he could do is buy her a pair of shoes for school, bearing in mind in 3 and a half years this will be the second pair of shoes he has bought her.

I don't think a father buying shoes is lucky I think it should be expected, especially since the maintenance we receive is so low. DP thinks this was nice of him. I also think that changing them from shoes isn't me being ungrateful, I said thank-you for them!

What the CSA say and what someone can afford are two completely different things. People can often afford a lot more. The reverse is true as well. It's a joke that they take tax credits into account when assessing a NRP's income as they are only given because their are resident children in that household. The CSA take them off one child to give to another.

There

The vast majority of people who use the CSA do so because they can't get the child's father to pay towards the upkeep of their children.

There will always be women who will act as apologists for fathers who go out of their way to avoid financially supporting their own children.

Avoidance is morally reprehensible, but the system is at fault - I know plenty of RP who play the system too (drop working hours to get more tax credit, for instance)

So basically what you're saying ChinaCupsAndSaucers is that, despite being in a serious financial hole, your DP still contributes above the CSA limit whenever he can afford to. Exactly as I was saying.

So basically what you're saying ChinaCupsAndSaucers is that, despite being in a serious financial hole, your DP still contributes above the CSA limit whenever he can afford to. Exactly as I was saying.

No, i didn't mention my DP - I was talking about my DDs dad.
He pays the minimum and she spends time with him when he treats her to things - not things she needs - it's my responsibility to buy those.
I wouldn't dream of trying to influence his choice of 'extras'; although I often find myself restricting her access to them when she's in my care

China, if he couldn't afford it or was struggling financially I would not expect anything off him. But I know that is not the case.

Buskers* apologies for hijacking - I'm certainly not directing my comments about mercenary mums at you!
I do think you have to suck it up though if he's paying - from experience I've learnt that what DDs dad thinks is appropriate for her and what I do are very different; but he's an equal in her life and his opinion is just as valid as mine - not wrong, just different!

I don't see at all why you should be grateful or thankful that the child's father bought her shoes not fit for their purpose.

I suppose given other views often expressed here you're "lucky" he contributes at all.

But I'd argue providing basic necessities for a child you chose to create is the fundamental role of both that child's parents be they NR, R or any other type.

Yadnbu. I have a pretty low opinion of men who only pay the bare minimum though.

Well, I agree with you OP. It shouldn't be like a favor he did for you - its his child and both parties should be providing basic necessities.

TSSDNCOP got it in one DP thinks I suppose given other views often expressed here you're "lucky" he contributes at all I think I don't see at all why you should be grateful or thankful that the child's father bought her shoes not fit for their purpose.

DP is grateful for them, it takes the pressure off us paying full price for a pair of decent shoes

If I told DH to get our 2.11 year old daughter some shoes for starting nursery he would come back with trainers. Even if I said I wanted proper shoes. Given the chance he woukd buy trainers as he thinks they are better for small children running around.

Maybe he just thinks his way is better? And they were from Clarks, he didnt go out and get a crappy pair from a supermarket. He actually got decent ones, with lights, which to me suggests he was thinking more of what the child would want.

DD wants to go outside in just her pants, but it's not always about what they want but about what is the most practical for all weathers.

And frankly you are massively over egging the 'shortfall' the cheapest trainers with lights in Clarks are £28. Most of the shoes are £30-32 so we are talking and extra couple of pounds. It's not like you had to put £20 towards them.

Over-egging? I mentioned it once. An extra few quid at the moment eats into our budget, thanks to an epic tax credits failure.

Add message | Report | Message poster BuskersCat Wed 04-Sep-13 15:31:17
Bit of both Morphy, more that I should be grateful that he has actually got off his arse and done something, but also because some mums get nothing.' TBH we are grateful that he took some expense away from buying shoes, things are a bit tight atm'

Add message | Report | Message poster BuskersCat Wed 04-Sep-13 16:01:04
DP is grateful for them, it takes the pressure off us paying full price for a pair of decent shoes

Plus in the OP.

DP or ex, he still spends more on her than the CSA limit. It's a figure that represents the bare minimum.

YANBU

I can't believe anyone thinks a pair of runners are acceptable winter shoes.

He bought her light canvas trainers, not suitable for autumn weather at all.

China - He pays the minimum and she spends time with him when he treats her to things - not things she needs - it's my responsibility to buy those.

No. It's both your responsibilities to buy the essentials.

After that whatever treats he wants to buy are his business.

I would have changed the shoes too, your DD needs proper weather proof shoes as we go into autumn and winter.