Registered User
Splitting the kids expenses right down the middle may seem like a good way of ensuring that the ex is making a fair contribution
but then the problem would be that the maintenance money could not go on things such as rent and food bills or petrol or car rego or insurance...
the way it is now is that the primary carer can determine where the money will be spent which is really the best option because needs may change from month to month.
I believe you may have misunderstood Peg...
I mean the extra expenses. The extra things that all kids need & all single Mamas struggle to survive.
I think if it's your kids a non residential parent should strive to get past the Marriage and focus on the kids. What is right for them? They want to dance, draw, play netball... Let's halve it so she/he can have that experience.
Kids cost money. It's not a finite amount and it changes.
The CS system is so difficult to work out for Ms Average & I have to say its very often unfair to the kids.
Registered User
Woah! You are more than welcome to my Ex! I am fair sure that separation and divorce was the best option.I guess this is why separation and divorce are not the best option and probably should be avoided... much like we are encouraged to avoid having a c-section over a natural birth
Um... me and my kids don't live in separate houses.My rent is their rent too.
I have to spread the love, Inanna. Will be back when I have to rep you for this though because it is spot on.I find it curious that society (not aimed at anyone in this thread) thinks it okay to question how a single Mama spends her dosh... "She's out drinking", "she had a new dress", "things can't be too tough"... Yet, the ex partner pops a 2 carot diamond on the finger of the next "lucky" lady and "that's lovely he's found happiness again"...
Do you get what I mean? Single Mums seem to need to explain and justify. I think we have to remember that there for the Grace of God (*insert deity) go most of us... Sometimes life throws a few curve balls and we are reminded of how difficult the other side of the fence actually is.
So what if we go to the Salon? I can't afford to and cut my own hair because my kids come first, but if I could, then the pitiable $26 per month my ex gives me for our two kids wouldnt even cover a simple haircut. He can get one though - wont be questioned. Just because he pays maintenance, does not mean it goes on things for mum. For ANY mother. She has to pay rent, buy food and pay expenses too. Just because she is sitting in the salon that afternoon, does not mean she hasnt already spent his maintenance on their kids!
Registered User
i see what you're saying, and it would be great if kids could do the extra activities and even better if the ex pays half of them.... but as mentioned by briggsys girl and hollo, they are not necessities of raising kids. Their learning experience & social life will definately be enhanced by them, but they get the same opportunities at school on a smaller scale.
The necessities are things that kids need such as shoes, clothes, school, medications, food....these are the things they need the most. I agree that rent would fall into that category, but i dont think its fair to expect the ex to pay for it. Once couples split, they each go their separate ways and live in separate dwellings so I dont think its reasonable to expect him/her to pay for the others rent.
but thats the good thing about CS, the carer gets the money and can use it on what ever they need to use it on at the time. There is no restriction on how its used so long as its going to where its needed.
Registered User
Just my POV from the other side.
Not all second wifes have a 2 carot diamond on their finger. Not all EXs can afford to contribute half of extra-curricular activites. Dh is paying crap all CS atm because he loss his job and is getting crap all money on centrelink. He is not paying a small amount of child support because he wants to be an a-hole, its because he cant afford to pay anymore than he is. Even though his ex-wife tells everyone its because his an a-hole and he doesn't care about his kids and he won't give her money for this or that. When coming out of woolies a couple of weeks ago one of her friends came up and abused him for not giving her money for her to visit her parents. If he had a big income he would be paying more. We don't go out, don't drink, don't smoke, don't go to the Salon, I cut dh's hair at home, my kids don't do extra activities, we don't buy new clothes because we can't afford it. We have to pay rent, buy food and pay bills too and we barely have enough for that. If it means feeding my children and having a roof over their head and a light at night or dsds doing ballet, soccer, swimming and giving ex-wife money when she wants it, sorry but the first is always going to win out. His ex-wife doesn't pay rent, can afford to smoke cigarettes, drink, buy pot, she can pay to see her parents herself.
Registered User
From a mum on both sides, my dh pays cs to his ex and i recieve childsupport. My ex is a shocker with paying and is always behind, though my now dh pays on time everytime, and pay extra if needed for school excursions etc, I don't begrudge that at all. My ex doesn't pay anymore than he has to I even have to supply the clothes etc for the girls go to stay with him.
To me childsupport is for the everyday stuff, food, clothes, shelter, electricy and gas etc, as this is what kids need to survive, extra curricula activities are a bonus.
Registered User
Peg - Sorry I have a few questions.
I would like to know why CS shouldn't be put towards rent if needed? Yes the parties have seperated, but a one bedroom flat can be alot cheaper than a 3 bedroom home needed for the average family. Sure its her choice to live in a 3 bedroom home over a 1 bedroom flat, but would it be fair to expect her to live in a tiny flat just because that extra $50 a week she needs is coming from CS? Should she say no to the house & yard just because the CS shouldn't be used for that?
& why shouldn't it be put towards petrol, rego & car insurance? These are all needed for children. Some people do not have the luxury of public transport. I mean NO access to public transport at all. If that little bit of CS put petrol in her car so she can do some shopping so what?
&, lastly, if she's recieved her $500 for the week, paid $250 rent, spent $200 on food, paid $30 off her electricity bill & $20 off school fees, there's nothing left. All the responsibilities are taken care of, its been 18 months since she had a hair cut, so when her CS came in she used that for a hair cut & lunch with a friend. So what? Should she have used her own money for that? Then been short for the shopping, but gone & bought the kids a pair of new shoes each, even though they didn't need them just because thats what CS is meant to be used for?
All the single mum's I know have their centrelink income every week. They use that every week for the basics, because that money IS guaranteed to be there every week. If they are lucky enough to recieve CS that week, it goes on extra's. Taking the kids out to lunch (which would include using it for her lunch coz her money is already gone), buying them some clothes they need, but then she would have to use some to put petrol in her car to get to the shops.
As long as the basic necessities are covered & the kids have what they need, who cares where that particular money goes? I know there are women who get less centrelink, because of the amount of CS they get. If the ex is a high earner, she could be getting $500 a week in CS, then only $100 from centrelink (I know, rediculus amounts, just an example), but what then. Is she supposed to use the CS to cover all living expenses? Or put her young children in day care, get a full time job, lose more money from CS & centrelink & not have the choice of being home with her children just because she it isn't fair for her to use the CS money to live.
Registered User
I don't think its unreasonable to ask for half of extra activities. I understand some men just cannot afford it, ok fair enough but the reason of "I don't have to pay for that" bugs me. Of course you don't have to but we are talking about your kids and it would be good for them if they can do things they enjoy.
Growing up yes my parents were together but we missed out on so much as my dad thought if he could pay bills and mortagage that meant the rest could go to himself meanwhile mum had to clothe, pay for school things excursions, pocket money etc on the tiny amount she got from family assistance, so while it is different in a way, I do understand it is dissapointing for a child to not be able to do all these things and have to miss out all the time just because he "doesnt have to pay"
Mum my goodness what an amazingly compassionate sister you have.It just made my heart leap to read how kind she has been...
You're experience is that of many women that it doesn't cover the basics. And a previous poster mentioned something very relevant to me. Because my children's father is a high income earner I get the minimum FT. There is absolutely no way I could afford to live on that... So that is a dilemma! Because clearly some of that is to pay mortgage, car expenses etc!
It's not an easy path - but it's our path none the less & I figure I will do it as best I can!
MY children's father won't even contribute to the expenses necessary to transport Immy to Brisbane and back & help pay for therapy... Why? Because he pays what he should... And the clanger... "everyone has a chromosomal abnormality - I don't know what she's on about"....
It's a challenge not getting bitter & to let it go. I work hard at doing that & mostly I succeed...
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks