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!

I know she has asked him if she can bring something back and she has told me before that he has told her no.

So he does provide her with extras for her to have at his home, rather than just giving you the CSA minimum?

Some men need clear instructions, heart was in the right place blah blah he is not the child here. Quite clear instructions were given he did not want to follow them he was being difficult and by further posts from op he often is

Stop treating men like children they are quite capable of making decisions and using their common sense and following requests made for the benefit of their own children of they want to

I don' know what he buys there, I know her nanny buys almost everything. Either way he wont allow DD to play with her things here, even if she asks him if she can. 4 days a month (2 weekends) is hardly providing extra

China.

Stuff he provides the child with for use at his home is not an 'extra' he is legally required to fund her during contact.

The csa require an nrp to pay 15% AND be solely financially liable during contact

Stuff he provides the child with for use at his home is not an 'extra' he is legally required to fund her during contact.

That's not what I was told upthread when defending my DDs Dad for paying 'just' the CSA amount - I was told that because he buys her things when she's there, he is giving extras, just not to me

all due respect china but this thread isn't about your situation.
its about ops.

Bloody hell China are you still here trying to convince yourself that the OP is being mercenary? From all that has been described she does far more for their child than he does.

Bloody hell China are you still here trying to convince yourself that the OP is being mercenary?

Nope - I've posted several times saying that I dont think the OP is mercenary.

I do think some of the other comments on this thread have been mercenary & offensive and it is those I am continuing to challenge.

If it is being mercenary to expect more than a pitiful, minimum effort on all fronts from someone who shares equal parentage of my children then I am cool with that.

I don't want the shite that he has at his, I've got plenty here for her. It does upset annoy me though that she will cry about having to leave something at his because he wont allow her to bring it home.

China just because you have an ex who pulls his weight in other none financial ways does not mean everybody else does

You may find it hard to understand but a huge amount of nrp's do nothing at all no contact no csa no time no concern no nothing and a great deal of them after a fashion and a fair bit of job hopping or lying pay as little as they can get away with rarely or never see the kids and do not pull there weight at all

Those are the nrp's we have been talking about not your ex you are clearly happy with the arrangement you two have.

You may find it hard to understand but a huge amount of nrp's do nothing at all no contact no csa no time no concern no nothing

Oh, I fully understand that - unlike some of the other posters on this thread who have used generalistic language and sweeping accusations, referring to ALL dads who only pay the minimum CSA as pathetic etc etc.

I see no reason why generalisations which insult many parents should not be challenged wherever it is posted on MN ;unless there is a new, unwritten etiquette that I am not familiar with?

Its quite clear from many of the posts that not one other person is talking about loving caring committed fathers everyone else apart from you is talking about the other type.

Nothing wrong with challenging generalisations but there is something quite odd about doing it so it comes across as defending the shit ones on a thread talking about a shit one to an op who is struggling with a shit one.

Is that to me needaholiday?

I wouldn't like the CSA to have to take anything.
There shouldn't be the need for the CSA, fathers or NRP should contribute fairly towards the upkeep of their offspring without the need for a third party to intervene.
I am no longer married to the father of my children but he contributes fairly every month without needing the CSA. If we used the CSA he would be contributing a lot less, he doesn't want to do that because he wants to do the right thing by his children.
CSA is there for NRP who for some reason need to be 'Big Brothered' into paying for the upkeep of their children.

If she hasn't worn them yet maybe Clarks would swap them?

CSA is there for NRP who for some reason need to be 'Big Brothered' into paying for the upkeep of their children.

Again, a generalisation that belittles and insults the 'supportive' dads who, for other reasons, use the CSA!

You do realise that there are some really malicious RP (mums) out there who hang their DCs out to dry by refusing to engage with their DCs dad at all, despite his willingness to do so, and consequently receive far less maintenance than they would otherwise have done if they'd been grown up and put their own feelings to one side?
Are you suggesting that those Dads should shove a wad of notes through the letterbox (assuming they know where their DCs live) in order to top-up the money their DCs mum receives from the CSA?

And, yet again, you ignore the fact that legally, the CSA is accepted as the only 'official' way of paying maintenance. So a NRP who is bankrupt, or subject to a debt repayment plan, is doing the best thing for his DCs by protecting a portion of his income via the CSA - the alternative is that that is reclaimed by creditors and unavailable to support the DCs at all.

Its not the only legally acceptable way of paying.

Official receivers will accept consent orders and signed agreement supported by bank statements, and the dwp/LA//hmrc/legal services will also accept signed agreements.

Many of them many not realise that they should accept them and have to have it pointed out to them but they do accept them.

You do realise that there are some really malicious RP (mums) out there who hang their DCs out to dry by refusing to engage with their DCs dad at all, despite his willingness to do so, and consequently receive far less maintenance than they would otherwise have done if they'd been grown up and put their own feelings to one side?

There are plenty of NRP who are mothers too, my DSS M for a start, so you're generalising too. She contributes fuck all in terms of anything fwiw.
With regards to your statement above, yes there are but I am not one of them and get along just fine with my XH thanks.
In any case the maintenance is for the upkeep of the children, it isn't about the RP.
Just because you are clicking your heels in the air at how 'lucky' you are to receive minimum payments from your XH doesn't mean the Op or anyone else, for that matter, should be overjoyed at this.

You're starting to sound like F4J China.

not even 10% of rp are men

around 40% of single parents receive maintenance from the nrp

shocking

20% seams fair to me as does the amount they currently take in some circumstances.

What I do find a bit off is how hard it is to get them to actually investigate income and transference of income when done intentionally to reduce payments and how hard it is to deal with job hoppers or just take the money out of an account when the nrp is unwilling.

Its fairly obvious when your dealing with a dishonest person and they should be able to deal more effectively with them.

I know if I were a nrp I would pay as much as it took to keep my kids comfortable (have never been a nrp but have paid maintainance for unrelated children still am for 1 and I always paid the agreed sum with other unexpected expenses on top of that and I didn't begrudge it)

But when you are dealing with the average csa claim your not talking silly money if your on a low assessment but can treat yourself then you can also treat your children or help more with things they need.

i think 20% seems fair

i am happy with the money i get, i know ds should be getting more as his dad is a high earner (so should be living similar standard of living) but we are fine