Mothers income invisible? Child maintenance

[CocoEnglishChanel91]

Advice please. My boyfriend and I have no children. His son lives with his mum, who earns £20k a year, plus WFT Credits, Child Benefit - and is living with her new partner, a police detective sergeant who earns £50k. Combined household income (including benefits) pushing £80k.

My boyfriend earns £28k per annum, sees his son every week, has great relationship with him. He has to pay over £200 per month to his ex, and has the Child Maintenance people crawling over and vetting his income.

Yet the £80k going into his ex''s household is classed as not being relative. Surely it is?

He's not trying to escape responsibility for paying for his son. Far from it. He's paid consistently from the off (over 15 years ) but it seems ludicrous to me that his ex can have whatever household income she likes and that's not a factor.

It just feels very unfair to be, with everything seemingly weighted on his ex's side.

Why is the parent with care's income not relevant? Doesn't the child have two patents?

From people with experience is what I say about patents with care correct? And could it impact on me if we move in together?

Thanks

J

I get that lobster. Your poor DD (because of him, nothing youve done) exp wanted me to terminate pregnancy too, failed to turn up for registering the baby then disappeared when he was 7 weeks old. I was glad. It made things so uncomplicated for me. But I hurt for DS. When he got in touch (DS was 3) i was also glad tbh. I was furious. How dare he but also relieved that maybe DS would get to know his dad and not just through photos and my memories of him. Im coming at it from the POV of growing up with my parents together and the thought of not knowing my lovely dad at all was heartbreaking. Then again, is someone who would cut their child from their life ever going to be a positive addition to it if they did decide to surface? Chance to do more damage than good. I still sometimes curse EXp for not just staying the fuck away as he has really hurt DS over the years. He lets him down a lot. But there are good sides to it too. Mixed feelings here but on the whole i think its better DS gets the chance to know him warts and all.

The NRP still has to provide a home suitable for the children to stay in at weekends and on holidays if they want to actually parent though, don't they? I appreciate that not all do, but the majority of parents are decent and will want that. Only one parent gets state help though, so again, it is never fair to everyone

They get a reduction in liability for CM for over nights with the children, they get a reduction for children who actually reside with them the majority of the time. Of course they can't claim any benefits for children who do not live with them, and given that living in a bedsit would not usually hinder the award of a contact order and that fairly recently the gov introduced legislation that made it very clear that if you live in social housing and are a NRP you are not allowed a room for your child. Then it's clear that the powers that be do not think this is nessacery.

Oh and lots of lone parents don't claim any benefits at all, I dont, Janet unthread doesn't. I would love to be at home with my kids (I think ) but in reality I would not be able to run my home nor meet the care costs associated with my children and we would be up shits creak with out a paddle as last time I checked nobody threw enough money at out of work lone parents to be able to live in anything even closely resembling financially stress free comfortableness

SurlyCue - totally agree that contact with both parents is almost always best for children, if only so that they can make their own minds up. I have always tried to be so, so careful about ex H - not to be too critical about the fact that he's never been seen etc - with the somewhat dubious result that DD has almost romanticised what he might be like in her head. DD has never had any positive role model - I had one, bad, relationship a few years ago and DD hated him. She regards men as somewhat superfluous to requirements really - has never had a boyfriend or expressed any interest - or in females for that matter (and she knows that wouldn't be an issue).

Sorry to the OP .... this seems to have spiralled in many different directions .....

*positive MALE role model

Oh and lots of lone parents don't claim any benefits at all, I dont, Janet unthread doesn't

No, neither do I.

It's ok cheekymonkeys I expected a flaming from a few (especially surlycue )
I couldn't actually give a shiny shit what people think, you don't know the full story, you can assume but you wouldn't even be close.
I wish I could actually say more and post some photos of how the children come to us! Social services are involved, school contacted them and a few anonymous people too.. there is an ongoing case now as the children's needs aren't being met!
To answer one of your assumptions surlycue, yes my dp does pay for uniform and shoes, dsc school has a scheme in place where parents on a low income are entitled to second hand uniform that gets donated to the school but she can't even be bothered to apply for that as it means she has to actually get off her bum and travel to the jobcentre to get forms stamped, (think the school can check entitlement online now so some uniform will be provided this school year) The school waited 2 weeks for this form to appear before contacting dp to let him know they had no pe kits, no bookbags, were just in plain grey trousers/skirt and a non logo polo shirt and trainers... they stuck out like a sore thumb compared to the other children!
We actually would like to have the children 50/50 but of course she won't agree to that as she won't be entitled to maintenence.

She's got social services involved, blatantly neglects her kids and all you want is 50/50?

If she really is that bad, why isn't your DH going for full residency?

Social services want us to try 50/50, they believe it's extra support she needs as she has 7 children in total and can't cope looking after them all! She hasn't ever accepted extra support from us if it means it cuts her money... of course she will accept extra support in terms of clothes, shoes, coats etc even though she has more than enough money to supply these herself for her household.

Anyway less of the potential bashing osolea!
Believe it or not ss don't just come swooping in and remove children from their homes without looking to alternative solutions within the family first and that is what is happening!

If she was really that bad they would be supporting a transfer of residency and they are probally far more qualified to make that assesment of her abilities than you are.

It's quite likely that she may have an opinion of you and your husband that is as scathing as yours is of her.

Start a thread on here pretty much any day of the week about logo school uniform and how it's essential and setting the child up for all sorts and neglectful not to have, and you would get your arse handed to you on a plate.

And being offered a few items of second hand uniform is hardly fits the the gets everything handed to her on a plate stance you are taking.

Did you actually read my reply properly needsasock?
I answered ONE example of how she gets everything on a plate! She gets all the rest that I said previously.
Unfortunately I don't make up dsc school rules about uniform having to have a logo, I'm sure it's the headmaster or school committee that decide school uniform rules, personally i dont think it should be essential that children have to wear logos but im pretty sure most schools have that rule in place, they certainly do where i live so no need to hand me my arse on a plate but thank you for the offer

I didn't offer to do so, it's a repeat theme on threads talking about having logo uniform. There was one last week about it and wanting to get x amount of full logo uniforms it got quite heated.

You quite obviously hate her,that is not an unusual thing when it comes to ex's and that does tend to cloud opinions of parenting but if she really was as dreadful as you say children's services would be obtaining court orders and supporting transfer of residency.

A surprisingly high amount of NRP's apparently have children who are being so shockingly neglected by their appalling ex's yet don't bother going for residency

CS don't demand perfection and that's not what they look for adequate is the bar and not at risk of significant harm. if they were at risk of significant harm through neglect (as your posts imply) then they would have to take further action and far more than just recommending 50:50.

She doesn't work, she her children survive soley on benefits, the money she has she doesn't want to spend on her children yet she went on to have 7 children ! There's your issue right there!

How often do you see NRP on here berated because Maintenance has been cut due to them having 'new' children with a new partner? Await the cries of 'he shouldn't be having more children than he can afford' 'his 1st children still need exactly the same money to bring them up' etc. yet it seems single mothers can reproduce at will and no one dares address it. Grim!

But Cheeky, if mum goes on to have more children she doesn't ask the NRP to chip for them too! So, different rules for a different situation.

No, in this situation it's everyone that has to 'chip in' for the children. How often do you see NRP out of work hammered on here for only oaying £5 it whatever it is for their kids? Exactly the same as this woman

Presumably she 'chips in' the childcare so her oh doesn't have to do it or pay for it.

Child maintenance calculator says he should be paying £220 a month. YABU.

Whenever more children are born it impacts the existing children. Of course it does.

Giraffe my sincere apologies. I was wrong, you arent talking shit. I really didnt expect that they children werent actually being clothed (or fed?) that is appalling. I do question why your DP is even asking for 50/50 and not just keeping the children with him full time! Has he got PR and if not is he in the process of getting it?

The neglectful parent having 7 children wins no awards in my book either. Not sure anyone else has said it i ok either.

Each parent decides what they can cope with physically and financially. I support/supported 5 chidlren (alone after the divorce) and no hild benefit or child tax credits or housing benefits. I have always worked full time and those 5 chilren have done and continue to do well.

Some mothers can hardly manage one child and others can manage a lot. The main thing is to ensure none of us is ever a burden on the state and hard working tax payers many of whom are single mothers working full time to ensure people who choose to work part time hours are kept in that luxury! (And I just saw the HMRC graph as I paid my VAT just now which shows how very much of this year's tax of mine went on various things so I hope the state is grateful.. and yes it's a bank holiday and yes I'm working all day....)

Cheeky, when new children are born, on either side of a divorced family, their financial expense is meant to be born by their parents, not by robbing a bit of food off of existing children's plates.

We all assume that when new children come along, parents afford them by:

1. working more
2. cutting back on their own luxuries
3. saving less

It's particularly obvious that this is not happening when a NRP has more children and then reduces the existing children's maintenance.

This bad behaviour may also be happening when a RP has more children, but we don't know and therefore cannot so easily criticise because we don't see transparent cash to show it up.

Or course, if it is happening that new children in the RP family are causing material hardships for the existing children, and it is visible, then you do see people criticising it on this forum, just as they criticise NRP for reducing support.