If you can't afford one child, you shouldn t have had another one (I quote)

[travispickles]

So as some of you know I have DD of 10 weeks and DP has DS of 10yrs. CM has gone down by 20 quid a month and DP receiving angry texts (see above). She is demanding he makes up the shortfall or she will refuse to bring him into town when she is coming anyway but make us drive the two hour round trip. What she doesn't know is he has just been made redundant so starting Sept he will be sahd looking after baby. CM will go down to minimum. Thing is, I will only just earn enough to keep roof over our heads and she doesn't work although she is a qualified teacher. Do I have right to refuse to pay any of my income to her?

sm99 I think if all people were reasonable then your idea would be the best way forward. When first separating the CSA guidelines could prevail. The after 1 year both parents could sit down and explain the child's costs to the other parent in a transparent way. It could then be worked out what the NRP had to pay in order to even it out.

But that relies on honesty and responsibility. As long as so many RPs, even of teenage/ secondary age children refuse to work - it will have to be the case that some of their own costs are met by another household.

And in regard to new partners like travis even if you don't actyually hand over your income to the RP of your parnters children, you still contribute. My DP will say to me, oh we can't do anything expensive this weekend i'm running out of cash. Invariably I don't want to sit in so I'll cover the cost. We have seperate money but with £500 leaving his account the instant he gets paid, and then having to pay for his DD while she's here, of ciurse the fact his ex refuses to work impacts on me.. and will impact on Travis.

Bottom line is, that mother needs to get out to work and stop expecting travis's family to pay her rent.

The dad also needs to work, or provide childcare for his first child as well as his second.

Absolutely reality and what i realise i am not accounting for is where the RP works hard, but isn't able to earn a lot of money in their profession, but the NRP earns a lot. Of course if the child is spending all or nearly all of their time at the RP's house it should have a higher standard of living more in line with the NRP. In those circumstances I think the CSA idea of CM being a percentage of income is correct.

What i would like to see more of is where there are two able bodied parents, working hard to support their children financially, have equal (or nearly equal within reason) time with the child, and a sensible, transparent arrangement where by if their is a short fall in costs on the child for one perent, these are met by the other. What i don't like is where an RP takes everything they can from their ex who has a normal income, claiming it is for the cost of the child, when if you look at it, it is not.

I actually don't think it does the RP any favours either. What will they do when the child turns 18 and they have an 18 year gap on their CV, and no more handouts?

reality I m with you on your disgust at your ex. How anyone can go on to favour further children when the first ones are just as much flesh and blood is really in incredibly poor taste. I suppose when hearing form the first wife's point of view it puts Travis's situation in to perspective. Yes, it's wrong that the ex wife doesnt work, but two wrongs dont make a right and 'someone' has to support the kid.

I wasn't suggesting that ALL childcare costs apply to both the PWC and the NRP - just that housing (ie both parties needing a house of a similar size to accommodate the child/children on whatever basis they stay over) is something both parties need to pay out for, so that element is neutral.

Someone mentioned the NRP should pay what they could afford, even if it's higher than what the CSA suggest. We could afford to pay more than £200 each month for SS, however I agree with my husband who insists that £200 adequately covers half of his food, clothes etc. Also, its quite clear that the money we do send, doesn't actually get spent on SS. The ex has had two babies with her new husband, and this has made things tight for her (not my DH's problem), so rather than send extra money which wouldn't get spent on SS, we make sure we buy him clothes, extra pocket money etc, when he's with us. So the money gets directly to the target!

I agree, petal. Why should the NRP pay everything he can afford my dp could afford to pay £1500 a month if we lived on beans on toast and I picked up the tab for everything else but why should he give over his hard earned cash to his ex?!

We like having extra cash so we can do nice things with the girls and they can have nice thingshere, if DSD's mother can't be arsed to get a job then she can't have the joy of giving her DD nice things as far as I am concerned. DP sees to it that she is fed and clothed while she's with her mum, the luxuries are up to her mum to provide.

Seems the age old story of people hearing the imaginary vows "I promise to support you and any subsequent children we may have together financially until death do us part" when they marry.

50-50 shared care should be the starting point.
If the dad is capable and willing to do it he should do 50% of the child care.

I can't imagine seeing my children every-other-weekend. No wonder NRP become estranged from their children.

And I think the system encourages conflict.

In a good deal of circumstances (and I know that is not always the case) The NRP gets to lose most of their house, see less of their children and then pay 15,20 or 25% of their salary over.

We have shared care of DSD and don't pay maintenance to her Mum, it doesn't make sense that with a 50/50 arrangement we would. We did ask our solicitor about asking for half te CB/TC but she said it's virtually impossible to get. DSDs Mum asked for maintenance to continue when we changed to 50/50 care but when we asked what she would need to pay for that we wouldn't she couldn't c

Come up with anything

Also we have 4 DC between us in our home including DSD, our choice I know, but we know she's on a similar salary to DH and only has one DC to support. The CM system is really unfair on almost everyone involved and need to be overhauled, as do the family courts.

I know it would be impossible to fund but wouldn't a yearly review with a person from the CSA where by they sit down with both parties and work out costs in order to make sure each pays 50/50 be great.

Childrens costs go up and down don't they, and new children come along, jobs are lost, promotions are gained etc etc this ringfencing of CM is dreadful.

I work because it is my duty as a parent to support my child. So if my ex turned around tomorrow and said he was leaving his job, I could cope fine. I can't understand why so many people let themselves get in to the position where they rely on their ex to be the sole provider for their child.

blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/alasdairpalmer/100082593/britains-family-justice-system-isnt-working/#

Link to article on dismal family court.

Interesting thread... only cause at the end of the year we will be in the same position. In all liklihood, DP will give up his job to look after the children (twins due later in year... so 3 under 3 and childcare costs higher than dp wage) and I will go back to work again.

I dont want to pay any of the income that I will be earning to ex either....but understand and can see where me paying the maintenance is going to have to happen. I can swallow that. What I dont like is having to pay for all the other 'incidentals' (new computer, new camera, new DS, flashy clothes etc etc etc) that are currently purchased by DP for DSS. On one hand I feel that I should have more (actually THE say if I am honest...) say over how much is spent (but not necessarily WHAT it is spent on...) but it makes me feel draconian and a bit like a bad 50's husband iyswim. I can just imagine the conversations... 'but he needs to have a new formula 1 racing car'... I just really dont want to go there... much much much easier for me if DP works 2 days and then its his call what he does with his money.

oh and his ex works full time so no complaints there!

Berrie I like that idea :)

I dont work currently, the cost of childcare for 19mo DS plus after school and holiday care for the older DC make it unfeasible financially. DH fortunately earns just about enough to keep us all fed, housed and clothed. My exH is very good and pays a reasonable amount of maintenance however we don't rely on it as his circumstances could change and through no fault of his own it could stop.

Before I had DS I worked and my DC and DSD had to go to ASC, there wasn't a way to claim TC to help cover the cost of DSDs fees and we couldnt even get DSDs mum to add the cost to her TC claim as apparently this would be fraud

TBH i think the CSA actually casue a lot of the animosity due to their ridiculous calculations.

My DH is ex armed forces and when he left the army (12 years ago) he was housed in a 3 bed maisonette with the rent being £300 a month. when he and exp split just after DSS (now 10) was born he had to move out whilst she was allowed to continue living there!

Dp's ex moved her DP in about 5 years ago and they both earn a full time wage. My DH and i now pay £850 in rent to accommodate the room we need for DSS as well as £300 in CM. So basicly we pay half her rent and what it costs to feed DSS for a month. How on earth does that amount to being in anyway 'fair' when my DH has regular contact with DSS? not to mention that she is living in very cheap nice accomodation when all our soldiers come back from afganistan with nothing!

And yes i am bitter about it but it's because the woman clearly doesn't have a conscience!

Anougher thought I just had.... Some people are saying they shouldn't have had a baby if they couldn't afford one. However, the didn't have a crystal ball telling them that he would be made redundant so didn't know that they would be in this situation now. It kinda like saying first wife shouldn't have had a baby if she couldn't make mariage work forever.
And what an outcry there would be across the globe if All those single mothers who have children by different men were sterilized to stop them having children.
The only way it would work that people only had children if they could afford them is by making it illegal to have children without x amount in the bank per child. Human rights would go bank out the window then

but latemates didn't you know that NRP's don't have human rights, only financial responsibilities

Too true !!!!

I don't think that the NRP should pay half the costs of the PWC, however, children do cost more when living with you, even wrt heating/rent etc. When my DC were at school if I was home during the day then I'd put a jumper on, my gilet and wrap a blanket/duvet around me if I was cold to avoid putting the heating on. If my children were at home, say on holiday, then the heating would go on so children can, and do, cost more in heating costs then if I was on my own. I also rent a 3 bed house, it would be cheaper for me to rent a smaller house/flat if I was on my own. My ex has had our DC to stay overnight twice in the nearly eleven years we've been apart. At one point he and his DW did rent a four bedroomed house but that was because she has 3 DS's, all of whom are older than my DC but still living at home at the time, the bedrooms were for them.

allnew that made me laugh! Yeah they have the financial responsibilities but the exp seems to not let my DH have any say with regards to having input in secondry school choices sharing christmas or bdays (she always has to have DSS on xmas day and new yrs eve and his Bday even if it falls on our access day) etc etc my Dh is a walking cash machine to her but he's far to low down in the pecking order to have any say in how DSS is raised

ChaoticAngelofDenial in your case, rent and bills are clearly an extra cost fo ryou and your ex should pay.

That's what i mean about how it would be ideal if someone from the CSA sat down with both parents once a year and worked out the short fall for either parent.

and allnew too flippin true

Rhirhi I know what you mean, DH's ex is the same. Particulary as the children are boys, I think this is an appalling example to them of the respective roles of mothers/fathers. They're basically being taught (or brainwashed), that a mother makes all the decisions, has no financial responsibilities, and that fathers aren't required to be involved in decisions which effect them, but are only useful for their wallet. If this is the example they see day in day out from her, you do wonder what sort of fathers they will turn out to be themselves...

Exactly children learn by example. I was washing up at the weekend (im 35 wks prg) and my DH said to DSS poor rhirhi washing up and shall we do it? and DSS said no it's not my problem! I was quite shocked.

My DSSs are clearly not encouraged at home to do anything whatsoever. At our's they will just walk off from the table leaving their bowls/plates etc and will scowl if asked to bring them to the sink. Clearly in their house that is woman's work

My dsd is the same so i don't always think it's a case of woman's work... more mother's work.
I've trained her up pretty well now. And more fool her mother who actually thinks her child isn't capable of clearing up after herself! It appears to me that she runs around after her in order to prove that she is needed there. She says she can't go back to work because she is too tired from having to do everything for the child (who lives with us half of the time and is 12!) She tells DSd that I get her to help me cook, tidy etc because I am lazy and that i get her to help me with my youger DD (5) because I don't like to do mum things myself... err no, I'm just trying to teach YOUR child to not be a completely self centered bitch like her mother! plus when both her dad and I work 50 hour weeks in order to provide for the children i think the least they could do is clear up after themselves!