Is DP BU to cancel maintenance payments to ex...

[missymarmite]

If he gets fined for her taking their 2 kids out of school for a weeks holiday with her partner.

It would only be until his share of the fine has been paid off. This is in light of the recent court case where a couple got taken to court and have to pay nearly a grand for taking their kids out on holiday. Apparently each parent is liable, even non-resident ones who have done nothing wrong! Why should our family suffer for HER holiday!

I honestly cannot believe the attitude of some of the posters on this thread.

Withholding maintenance because you dont like the ex's behaviour is obviously not ok. Withholding maintenance to cover financial losses that the ex's behaviour has caused you is a completely different case altogether. If the ex cannot afford to lose that amount in maintenance then she shouldn't have booked the holiday and risked the fine.

Why on earth should the OP and her DP lose out financially when they would already rather the kids were in school?!

I'm totally with the NRP here. Why the fuck should he, and his family, suffer because his ex has taken the kids out of school? That's redic. All this 'oh your children will suffer if you don't pay the maintanance' well hardly if they can afford a holiday in the first place.

I would send a letter to the school saying you are totally opposed to the holiday and do not give your permission. I would go to a solicited and get them to send a letter to the ex wife saying you are opposed to this and you do not give permission for her to take the children out of school for a holiday.

And if you DO end up getting fined then I would reduce payments to the CSA minimum. Forever.

I agreed that her partner shouldn't have to pay and had some sympathy with her predicament, notally

But I think that what got some people's back up (including mine)was that the op thought cancelling (not reducing) the maintenance was the first and only course of action She didn't seem interested in negotiating with the ex, sending letters, talking to head teacher etc.

I think some people took that as an indication that she was using the maintenance as a stick to beat the ex with.

The OP said several times that her DP had tried to discuss the issue with his ex. People just read what they want to read

needaholiday

Nope you do not have the wrong end of the stick. A resident step parent can be fined.

Not sure how enforceable one would be against someone with no pr but they are being issued to them.

Wiltshire Cc has been doing so for quite awhile

I would go to see the head teacher in person, and tell them that I (DH) am totally opposed to my children being taken out of school for a holiday and that you would like your objection noted. I would tell Ex that I had done this, and that as a result, if there was a fine to be paid it would be HER responsibility. I would NOT cancel maintenance payments over the issue.

Maybe83 - If you can't afford to financially support your existing children you shouldn't have any more

I am not comfortable with this way of thinking.

I am good friends with a couple who seperated a few years ago. Both now have new DP. Initially both couples have same income but NRP pays £350 per month in CM so there is a real difference of £700 per month in income. Therefore one couple are now TTC as they can afford another child while the other couple would love their own child but can't afford it.
Seems very unfair to me. Not only does the NRP not have their own children living full time with them and finds this upsetting but people think they should not have any more children too.

I would tell Ex that I had done this, and that as a result, if there was a fine to be paid it would be HER responsibility.

I don't really see why the OP's DH should visit the headteacher (probably involving time off work), particularly as nobody knows that it would make any difference. If the policy is to fine both parents, then that is probably what they will do.

Red shifter - if both people have partners then both houses have 2 incomes. The RP is shouldering most of the financial responsibility for the child. The NRP has less.

So if one couple can afford to ttc and the other couple can't it isn't solely down to them being an NRP

I don't think if a letter is lodged with the school and the resident parent that the non-resident parent is totally opposed to the children being removed from school for holidays in term time at the beginning of every school year (so before anyone books anything) that the non-resident parent can be fined tbh.

The same annual letter could confirm the non-resident's parents wish to be fully involved with their child's education, and request copies of invites to events and parents evenings/school reports etc. Include the NRP's contact details.

No fine would then be payable by the NRP (certainly the production of the letter would mean no court would agree!). It's all about nice manners and timing.

Make it polite and friendly and the worst that would happen is that the school would be aware that both bio parents care about their child's education.

(There are fairly strict rules on taking children out of the country too where both separated parents have parental responsibility. I think it's a maximum of 28 days without needing formal permission. You might want to check it out).

I'm not sure why so many people have to make everything in life a battle of egos, & so many NRP make it all about them. Demonstrate support for the school and pay your maintenance. Then the winners are the kids.

He could also write to his MP to say his ex is planning to do this, he is objecting, and can the MP investigate whether the legislation is being correctly interpreted because it is so manifestly unjust that a parent with no say in it, who in no way benefits from it, is fined in this manner and therefore he can't believe it was the intention. He needs to do this before the holiday, obviously.

Formal letter to head also stating he has voiced his disapproval and does not agree with this action.

Don't withold CS though. Seriously, don't. It will upset the kids horribly, I think, and they will inevitably find out. It's their money, not the exes. I'd also have a quick look on the CSA calculator, because if he witholds support in this way then she is likely to go that route and might you actually end up paying more?

I think the MP letter is important though, because it is such a nuts way to proceed. How can one person be fined because another wants to have a holiday on the cheap and is willing to break the law to achieve that? It's not exactly uncommon for split parents to have, erm, complicated relationships, so the notion the NRP can apply pressure is pretty laughable in this scenario, really.

YABU. Your DP is paying maintenance for his children - not for the ex ergo you are not "paying for her to go on holiday" - grow up.

Get DP to write two letters - one to the ex stating he does not consent to her taking the children out of school during term time (cc the school) and one to the school saying that he does not authorise/consent to his ex orchestrating any such absences (and cc the ex). All bases covered - all upfront - no need for a shit storm as the decision to go against his wishes will fall to the ex.

I think people arguing that the kids won't starve if maintenance is witheld are actually missing something: to a kid, a parent paying the maintenance is a parent willing to step up, and one willing to make a very apparent sacrifice for their child's welfare. It has an emotional punch, too, and when that parent refuses to pay for whatever reason it makes that child feel shitty. There is an emotional value to paying child support, from the perspective of the child. It's natural for parents to see it through adult eyes, absolutely, but please pause to consider it from the kids' eyes.

I agree the fine is grossly unfair; I agree steps should be taken to make the case clear in advance. I just don't agree that witholding child support is ever a solution. It punishes the child in several ways, and standard of living is only one.

Why would the children even know about the intricacies of their mother getting their father fined and him recouping the money from her?

That's not the kind of stuff children should know about.

If this woman deliberately incurs a fine for her ex, it is entirely right that she should pay it.

And the cost of it is part of the cost of her holiday.

Which her ex has no obligation to cover.

She can either pay him back out of her household income, or he can take it back out of the bit of her household income that he contributes.

I find it utterly bizarre that anyone should think that his other children should "go hungry" in order for him to pay a fine incurred on his behalf by his ex.

Really sock . Oh my gosh there's going to he so many pissed off parents at the schools! .

Are the fines per day?

If I was the NRP and I got fined regardless of onforming the school of my objections etc I would withhold the maintenance. I wouldn't be out of pocket for something my ex did against my wishes. Esp when I have more children to support.

I think we should start fining schools if children's regular teachers are away, or if the school can't provide the necessary specialist teachers. It should work both ways.

But teachers don't flounce off for an all inclusive fortnight in Benidorm mid-term as a rule.

If teachers are off it is because they are ill and if specialist staff aren't in place it is because the school don't have the budget to employ them.

You are comparing chalk & cheese.

"The RP is shouldering most of the financial responsibility for the child. The NRP has less."

What a load of nonsense. What if the PWC doesn't work? They're shouldering no financial responsibility whatsoever. What if the PWC earns minimum wage and therefore child benefit and tax credits from the state, but the NRP is paying a large amount per month. The NRP can easily and frequently be shouldering a larger financial responsibility than the PWC

ComposHat, less well run schools can be abymsal in organising proper cover, or ensuring retention of staff and continuity of children's education. In such situations, younger children in particular have their learning sacrificed on the altar of colouring in worksheets. And nobody does any fining then, do they?

Boffinmum

This has nothing to do with teachers being off/away, you are putting forth a straw man argument.

No I am not, it is about power. Parents are being put in a subservient position to the great government machine here, with its notions of ideal citizens and compliant behaviour. They have little recourse when statutory entitlements are messed up, as they are meant to be submissive and grateful for whatever crumb the Government seeks to throw in their direction. On the other hand, if they have the temerity to vote with their feet in this regard, they are quite literally criminalised. The wealthy use independent schools where fines don't apply, so this is a law for the 'little people'. How can that possibly be equitable?

I should probably say something now like 'wait until the revolution'.