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

Osolea giraffe stated that she and her DP pay for all those things too. Sounds like the lazy arse BM pays for nothing so getting a 'discount' or not for shoes wouldn't really affect her. Giraffe I'd suggest not paying a penny more than your DP has to in that situation. Perhaps if the mother is not willing to pay for her children she shouldn't have had them in the 1st place

What is the current CSA guideline? Is it still 15% of gross income for one child, 20% for two and 25% for three?

If it is then im assuming giraffes partner is getting £3k gross a month if he is paying £600 for two children. This leaves £2200ish net- £600 = £1600. Deduct £300 for equivalent contribution to his and giraffe's shared child and he has £1300 left. Giraffe says she works too although doesnt mention hours. Even if it is 16 hours on minimum wage thats £450 take home (no tax payable) so £1750 available for all bills. If your bills are so high that you struggle on this amount then thats unfortunate but not the CSA's or his exwife's fault or responsibility.

also
God knows what that £600+ actually gets spent on seeing as she gets everything for free

If you believe that you'll believe horse shite was lemons.

And if she is getting "disability" it'll be because she is actually entitled. It is increasingly more difficult to qualify for, even for people are are quite clearly disabled.

his ex sits on her arse claiming every benefit she can get her hands on

she'll only be getting what she is entitled to.

You are frighteningly misinformed and seem very angry about what you believe is happening. Perhaps do some research and give your stress levels a break.

Oswin, the 'mither' doesn't pay for any of these thing giraffe and her DP do. Good job aswell, sounds like she shouldn't have care of the poor kids!

Who the fuck are you Minnie to call her a lazy arse? How is she? She's ill ffs.

Why are you putting mother like that? Giraffe doesn't say she buys the kids stuff.
She said she doesn't see where its spent. Totally different thing.

Sounds like the lazy arse BM

Mother.

Giraffe I'd suggest not paying a penny more than your DP has to in that situation

i'll eat my shoe if he is paying a penny more than he has been told to!

Minnie, it's irrelevant whether she's lazy or not, a parent still has to pay for their child. My opinion is that she should provide financially as well, but if she can't or won't then that doesn't mean the father gets away scot free. And it definitely doesn't mean that he should be able to have more children and reduce what he gives to the first.

It's not favouring the first child, it's expecting that the existing child's needs were considered when planning to have another.

Having a child with someone who is already responsible for children should not mean they reduce their maintenance payments by half if they have more children. It might be the new partner's first baby, but it is always going to be the NRP's second child.

I think it's unfair expecting a single parent with child one, to have to accommodate the other parent and partner's decision to have child two. It's not like it's getting any less expensive to provide for child one, just because child two is coming?

Of course the NRP will have more expenses with further procreation, so a small deduction might be made, based on his outgoings being higher paying their part for new baby, but they also have a whole other adult to provide too.

That maintenance amount going out is more than matched by the money the NRP puts into providing a home, food, and other needs for child two. Plus child two's other parent will provide for them too. How does that favour one over the other? It doesn't, I would have thought.

Giraffe can you confirm if you buy the child all clothes and shoes or if your comment about paying "all this ourselves" related to council tax etc, as I assumed?

Also, if I might add, as a person (raking in?) on disability, which is incredibly difficult and stressful to get, it's very difficult to work if you have fluctuating health conditions, like being mentally ill. You can't really fake something like that, so it tells me that she is likely quite ill.

Further to that, her income and how she gets that, isn't really anything to do with you, nor does her spending money on nice things for herself mean she is spending the maintenance money on herself.

If she is not providing for her child, then that is an issue, but it's sort of separate to maintenance and more to do with her neglecting to provide essentials for the children. I'd take that up with someone like social services, who are far better positions to assess her situation and whether she is a fit parent (or perhaps needs some support) than yourself and people on the internet.

Being 'ill' doesn't stop you spending money on your children's shoes. Giraffe clearly states that the 'mother' doesn't do that.

a parent still has to pay for their child. Giraffe has said the 'mother' doesn't. £600 a month is more than enough to provide a pair of shoes for your children when you don't pay rent, council tax or anything else by the sound of it. She should but she doesn't so she is a lazy arse simple!

I don't think NRP partners should be financially responsible for another person's child maintenance, that is the NRP's responsibility. Just as it is the NRP and new partner's responsibility to be financially responsible for child two.

In each case, mother and father for each child only pay for their own progeny.

I'm finding it very confusing to write down what I mean, I simply want to say that the NRP does not become less financially responsible for their children simply because they are having more children.

stealth she clearly said 'it wouldn't be so bad if she provided these things for them, but she doesn't'

Girraffes step child must be wandering around barefoot and naked then.

Wonder what the school has to say about that!

I wouldn't be happy to make a statement based on the hearsay of a person who obviously dislikes the person whom she is providing information about.

My ex's girlfriend liked to go around telling people I was an unfit mother, which I was absolutely not (fed, clean, clothed appropriately, went to school and nursery, took them out regularly, they were happy kids), so depending on who you listen to, there are often two entirely different stories.

a parent still has to pay for their child. Giraffe has said the 'mother' doesn't.

Well giraffe is talking bollocks isnt she. Engage the logical part of your brain and ask, if the mother isnt paying for her child this means the child doesnt eat at home, doesnt have bedroom furniture, bedlinen, gas, electric, clothes, haircuts, treats, toys, transport, school uniform plus bag and pencils and all sorts of other expenses. Doesnt it? Or do you really believe the child exists on thin air whilst butt naked when not at dad's? Because i think school would notice and have reported her. I hope the dad would!

Heigh, yes and I'm lucky because I'm not ill and have been happy to work full time for 30 yeras without maternity leaves so i can pay the ex and support all the children alone and (not my choice) have them 365 nights a year. It would ben ice to have a night without them here a year.... but the law does not allow me that as there is no law to force the non resident parent even to have the children one night a year.

"Janet, it sounds pretty tough. In your case, I am guessing the financial side is annoying more than devastating because you are so capable and successful. But there is an implied lack of emotional involvement from the DC's father, and that is awful. Your actions are right. I don't know if there is any reward in the next life (is there one? who knows?), but there certainly is one in this life. Doing the right thing despite is being painful, I am sure has benefitted your children and the adults they grow up to be. Also, I do think virtue is it's own reward. Thank goodness for parents like you, who can put aside there own hurt and grievances, maintain dignity and self control and provide a reasonable emotional environment for their DC to grow up in."

Thanks. I don't know if my efforts and payments for train fares so the children can see his parents are appreciated. I don't thikn I've ever been thanked. I've not been thanked by his parents except when I email photos. I 've never been thanked by their father who never communciates with me and the children find visiting very old relatives they don't often see not exactly treat of the year so may be I shouldn't have bothered. I do think there's a moral responsibility for children to see grandparents even if they live a long way away and no bad thing if they have a day not doing what they want but doing their duty but even so you do some wonder sometimes if it really does benefit you. Their father just remarried as he has that rather large divorce settlement from me and an unmortgaged house and 365 nights a year free of children. He seems to have done awfully well through being so awful I divorced him. The only "benefit" to me is that the children live here and they are lovely but it was an usual middle class divorce. I suppose as he has no obligation to pay anything the only way he could make things harder for a full time working wife was not to look after or help with the children so withdrawing from that was all he had power to do. His loss though in omse senses, although not all. It certainly from his point of view makes for a much easier life and much more spare money than if he felt responsibilities to or desire to see his children.

Oh surly, my brain is fully engaged but thank you for the prompt

I'm presuming seeing as you are typing that you can actually read? She doesn't pay for uniforms or clothes so safe to say she sounds like a shite mother. I have no doubt the child is fed, pretty sure she feeds herself so would have food in the house.

Why is giraffe 'talking shit'? Is it because it doesn't fit into your NRP hating agenda?

I'd really like giraffes to clarify. I understand that the mother gets free uniform and shoes (and so, by default, so does the father). If all their non uniform clothes and shoes are bought by the dad then I accept that the mother is a bit shit. Same as when it's the other way round really. A friend of mine has lots of children and is a single parent. The other parent offered to kit them out with school shoes for September. Great. Then the offer was downgraded to...stationery. great, pencil and a ruler will really make a dent in the hundreds of pounds she's shelling out.

Why is giraffe 'talking shit'? Is it because it doesn't fit into your NRP hating agenda

Why would I have an NRP hating agenda and why would giraffe be anything to do with it? She isnt an NRP.

Giraffe is talking shit because i know for a fact children need to eat to survive. If this child lives with her mother (she is receiving child support so i assume she does at least 50% of the care the. The child will be being fed during that time. I also know for a fact that naked children is a red flag for neglect and social services would be involved if she was not clothed.

She doesn't pay for uniforms or clothes so safe to say she sounds like a shite mother

so what youre saying is you believe these children are naked at school and whilst at their mothers?

Surly, you are very strange I'm suggesting that giraffe and her DP, you know, the NRP, buy the child clothes seeing as their shit mother doesn't bother. Certainly sounded that way to me.

supposing these children were running around naked and starving when they were at their 'mothers' you would still blame their dad ive seen enough posts by you on here to know that much. I'm done with this thread. Pointless

Perhaps an "easy life" Janet, but a pretty meaningless one. A lot of things in life, like children, are hard work in the moment. Certainly not a joy and a pleasure every moment, but the struggle to love and raise them is what makes a person happy and content in the long run. (I think a meaningful life's work can be the same.)

It may seem that everyone takes for granted your dignity and sense of duty. It's probably true, especially in the case of DC who probably won't truly understand what you have done for them until they have their own children.

I think you can probably enjoy a smidgen of self-satisfaction for being a decent human being when so many aren't, but also, what would things be like if you chose to be bitter and withholding too? Your "reward" is the better life for your children. Sure, visiting elderly relatives is a drag, but how might they feel as adults, if their father's family had been completely cut off? Would they be angry? resentful? confused? feeling rejected?