Spending/money - non resident v resident children

[SpottyDottyOne]

Just wondering how others manage spending issues with resident and non resident children.

DSD is eow and one weeknight, so we pay her mum £360 pm via CSA. Far more than we spend on DS, but another issue.. Anyway, whilst she is here we'll have often bought DS new clothes/toys etc or we often pick up stuff when we're out and about. She always remarks pointedly whenever he has something new, and is v stroppy whenever she asks for spending money for days out with friends etc and we have to refuse - pointing out that she should be asking her mum for pocket money.

Just wondering how others manage apparent spending inequalities when you have a non resident child. It looks as though DS 'gets' a lot more, but DSDs share gets paid directly to her mum, so even though we do get her bits and pieces whilst she's here, her main stuff has to be provided by her mum. She doesn't seem to understand that all her expensive activities etc are actually contributed to by Dad's money too.

Not expecting the SM to spend her monies on the DSCs.

that is the responsibility of their father, to spend his monies on his DCS.

But throwing your toys out of the pram, because partner does not spend as much money on a child that is not his own - is nothing to do with his feelings of guilt. he has no guilt to feel. The childs father has the problem

See we really differ a lot Whatever. I consider DS and DSC to be our children in RL - it is only really here that I define a difference for clarity. How can a family truly blend if there are constant squabbles over who has ownership/financial responsibility for each child?

Do you factor in the cost of your DS's share of the food, housing, bills etc when you say you spend more on DSD than DS? Because that's what your CSA contribution is for, not for pocket money and ice creams while they're out!

The money you pay to DSD's mum is a contribution to bringing her up for the 10 days out of 14 she is not with you. I'm sure if you worked out how much your DS costs to look after, including school trips, clothes, shoes, birthdays and Christmas, after school clubs and activities etc. While I'm sure your £360 is appreciated, I can't imagine it goes very far.

If she's with you EOW then I would say that her leisure time is your responsibility that weekend and that if she needs £5 for lunch while she's out, telling her she should have asked her mum just sounds petty to me.

While I'm sure your £360 is appreciated, I can't imagine it goes very far £360 is a lot of money. It's nearly £90 a week. If you were an unemployed single person it's more than you'd get as a single person to live off entirely, including all your bills. It's more than most students have to live off, after rent is paid. For most people on modest incomes/outgoings, I think that would more than cover all the costs of a child, even if the DM contributed nothing at all herself.

I see your point Purpleroses. If the maintenance paid out each month exceeds the money spent on the resident child (which I think is what the OP is saying) I can see that insisting on total parity during access weekends actually disadvantages the resident child.

When I say 'money spent on resident child' I mean the 'total running costs' not leisure spending.

I suspect in a low income household (regardless of blended or bio household) the running costs of a child are quite a bit less than £360 per month, by necessity. Not choice.

Your DSCs second home is irrelevant - your DS should ahve a second home, but sadly does not.

That is not the fault of your partner

Your DSCs second home is irrelevant - your DS should have a second home, but sadly does not. That is not the fault of your partner

The DSCs second home is NOT irrelevant, it’s all part of the bigger picture. And just because the OP’s DS doesn’t have a second home, does this mean he should be ‘short changed’ in his ‘main home’?

he is not being short changed in his main home.

Asteria wants him to have the same as her DPs DCs, including what they have in their second home. That is unrealistic. He is not responsible for providing for the child and then more.

Whatever - I never said that DH was "responsible" for my DS. I said I was upset that he objected to me ensuring that our DC were on an even keel.
That said - we try and avoid the "my DC, your DC" in RL. Blended families get along a lot better if it is "our DC".

Another CSA making up the payment schedule as they go along...over £400 next month ...something to do with number of weeks etc.

Really, really, tempted to take the same amount of money out of the account for DS every month, and put it aside for him. So fed up of having to economise on what he has because of the ludicrous maintenance payments.

DSD is going to get two christmas's - both of which we'll have paid for. And I have no idea where I'm going to budget for DS's Christmas gifts.

I hate being the second family.

Spotted - you really sound jealous - your DP pays for his DC -done dusted etc.

You object to the money going to pay for his DSD and think it is unfair - fine, but what you now suggest makes you sound like a petulant child and no you have not paid for 2 Xmases - DSDs mother and father pay for hers.

Honestly, most EXWs get it, the new family hate, loathe and abhor having to give money to the evil, controlling, money grubbing EX to bring up the child/children the other parent had before. We all waste the money, spend it on ourselves, do not acknowledge that the other parent is contributing and our DCS are all spoilt,lazy, badly behaved, rude, ill mannered, attention seeking, little wives that destroy the new family everytime they dare to come through the door of their own home.

The father pays for the heating, food etc for his DS in his current household -to then put aside another £400 pcm for the DS would also be unfair - as the father is already paying for alot.

No I do not believe all families think my last paragraph - just if you read anything on steps - it is rare for someone to say the EX is a normal, hardworking Mum, who brings the DCS up to polite, clean caring and not selfish!

Spotted comes across as resenting any money being spent on DSD, the last comments about Xmas beggar belief. Her DP pays for his child - quite right, just get over it. The poor kid notices if something new has been brought - so do my 2, they learn that new things, clothes etc come when they are needed, she asks for pocket money -what kids does not. Sounds like the DSD is a normal child. Am sure she recognises that her DS gets more than £4320 spent on him per annum, when food, heating, meals out etc are put into the equation.

Really, really, tempted to take the same amount of money out of the account for DS every month, and put it aside for him.

You would have to deduct from that amount his food, clothing, shoes, haircuts, uniforms, school trips, electric, heating and the cost of a bedroom for him. Because the maintenance paid for DSD covers all that and more, it isnt just for trips to the cinema with her mates.

Also, the 'ludicrous' amount of csa isnt just plucked from thin air. It is based on your DH's income with a reduction for your son. I would imagine over your son's lifetime your DH will spend a good deal more than 15% of his income on him.

Cats. This is an argument I often see. Whilst I agree that some rp do pay all you mention out of CSA, in our case the ex doesn't.

We have a bedroom each for all the children, a 7 seat car, all clothes are bought by us, haircuts, dinner money when they're at mums, mobile phones, school trips,I wash more of the kids clothes than mum .... When dsd2 moved in full time from mums we didn't have to buy her a thing extra.

We have MORE costs for the kids than mum and we still pay CSA.

But society will choose to see her as the poor single mum doing all the work and having all the expenses. It's not always the way.

I was a single mum with no maintenance or help for 7 years so I know how hard it CAN be.

Thebluehen i am assuming you and your partner have made a decision to pay maintenance and pay for all these things on top. That is your decision and does not mean that what the cSA decide you must pay is 'ludicrous' (op's word) or that it shouldnt be paid. You have a choice not to pay for all these things.

Also the cost of your car? how is that money that should be paid from child maintenance? Their mum doesnt get to use it when she has them does she? I mean you need the 7 seater anyway. That isnt her cost to pay. Or a bedroom each. She doesnt use those either.

But it's the assumption that it's only the resident parent that has costs. She has a 7 seater too but she has maintenance to help pay for hers!

But it's the assumption that it's only the resident parent that has costs

It wasnt an assumption- It was a response to the OP's comment. I'm sure she would have said if they paid for the child's needs whilst at her mother's house on top of maintenance.

It's ludicrous because need isn't a factor. If DSD was a small child requiring childcare, then I'd advocate paying more/providing 50% of childcare plus costs as £360 is nowhere near enough to cover that.
However DSD is 12 and requires no childcare, so all the CSA needs to cover is half of her needs. I don't consider rent, heating etc to be needs as all capable adults have to provide these for themselves regardless of having children - if you're unable to work due to taking care of young children, then of course the other parent should help with YOUR living costs but otherwise it should be up to each parent to meet their own costs in this respect. We have a bedroom here for DSD, and of course we have our own utilities to pay.
If DSD's mother were matching our contribution, then DSD would have £710 a month for her 'needs'. However, as no normal 12 year old requires that amount of money spent on them, we end up footing most/all of the costs for DSD. Plus incidentals like clothes, coats etc as her mother fails to provide them and things we've bought end up at her mum's house as she doesn't have any at home.
If I sound bitter, it's because I'm this instance the system allows the rp to make little/no financial contribution for her child, whilst often causing us financial hardship.

I don't consider rent, heating etc to be needs as all capable adults have to provide these for themselves regardless of having children

Well start considering it as needs because without DSD her mother could rent a place with one less bedroom and could keep her energy bills lower.

A room in a shared house in my town is £150 a month. I could rent that if it wasnt for my children. A two bed flat is £450 upwards. So there is £150 straight away that both me and my exp are each responsible for just to put a roof over our dc's heads. He pays £200 a month for two dcs so that leaves £50 a month for his half of feeding, clothing, keeping warm, providing childcare, paying for haircuts, clubs, extra curricular etc. i dont find his contribution 'ludicrous' in the way that you do.

Also bear in mind that while it may not take £710 every month to maintain your DSD there will be months and even years where she requires a lot more financial support than others.

Catsarebastards - I think your sympathy is misplaced here. You get £200 a month for two children, DSD's gets nearly double that for one child. She is remarried with a nice house of her own. She's not a mum struggling to provide for her children. She certainly would never entertain living in a shared house, even were she to be childless and single. She has no childcare costs as she's able to choose not to work. You mention childcare, so I presume you have a job - yet the level of support you get is nowhere near the amount provided for a woman who doesn't incur any of these costs. Because my DH works long days in a high pressured job, she's able to ensure his income meets most of the costs for DSD - rather than necessitating her to work and provide these things.

But the system isn't 'ludicrous'?