Missing grandaughter so much

"The courts stipulate how much maintenance has to be paid. The son of a friend of mine has fallen behind with his payments. He's self employed and struggling financially. "

So the father should look for more reliable income and support his child - cheap excuses

"His ex is remarried, has a well paid job and is not dependant on his payments yet has stopped him from seeing his children and a result, my friend cannot see her GC."

The financial and marital situation of the mother is irrelevant- child support is for the child, not the mother.

If there is a custody order and the mother is not fulfilling it, it is his right to go to court, so the gp can also see the gc

"My friend is not in a position to offer financial support. If parents in these situations want to be unreasonable there's little that can be done."
Yes, the father should step up and face reality

Another way traditional society vilifies the mother and leaves fathers off the hook

Smileless2012

A good post icanhandthemback. It's cruel for this little girl to be deprived of her father because he has missed a child support payment.

Courts do not grant parental access purely on the basis of the parent the child is not living with keeping up with their financial obligations.

I'm saying, and have further clarified in subsequent comments that mum is not necessarily "cruel" or a bad mother but may be under stress

So Dad needs to persue the correct routes by getting financially stable and hopefully finding a way to co-patent effectively through mediation, if not it will go the court route

Please quote entire comments not partial comments as removing context is dishonest

My son worked in the Family Division of the High Court and I'd just like to point out that for the court access between parent and child is not about the parent's access to their child but rather the child's access to their parent. Denying a child access to their parent unless it's on the grounds of safety should be abhorrent in anyone's eyes. Using a child as a stick to beat someone with is cruel and totally disregards the emotional needs of the child. I understand the mother wants and needs her child support, but she isn't putting the child's needs first but punishing her by denying her access to people that love her. Seeing your own parent can never be a reward for them handing over money.

Fail to see what VS?

I saw no objective standpoint in your post yesterday @ 19.02 when you posted It's not right for him to take no responsibility for his daughter's needs and mum likely has had enough and has no other way to force him to do his duty by his child.

As you say thankfully others on this thread have taken a more objective standpoint.

Smileless2012

Animosity is created when parents will not/cannot work together in the best interests of their children, and I fail to see how commenting on the OP's post could possibly create animosity between these people.

The issue you've raised about what one parent may view as essential child related expenses is a good one Glorianny and some ex wives earning more than their ex husbands is something I've also referred too.

So like when Dad is out of work and not paying child support then?

Yes of course you fail to see that, that's why I pointed it out

People really don't give advice very carefully sometimes

Although thankfully others on this thread have taken a more objective standpoint

Animosity is created when parents will not/cannot work together in the best interests of their children, and I fail to see how commenting on the OP's post could possibly create animosity between these people.

The issue you've raised about what one parent may view as essential child related expenses is a good one Glorianny and some ex wives earning more than their ex husbands is something I've also referred too.

You can't always rely on a struggling parent who is suddenly having a £50 a week budget deficit to make good choices.

It doesn't necessarily make this a bad mother or make her cruel.

She has child, suddenly all the responsibility of providing for that child rests solely on her shoulders. She has a smaller budget to do so.

She is trying to force Dad to do the right thing and start supporting his child again.

She has gone about it the wrong way but there is not a right way option for her here, it is solely dependant on Dad.

She may be incredibly stressed and struggling to cope with mounting bills or going without necessities.

That deserves a little empathy.

Dad needs to get stable and pursue this through the proper routes, starting with mediation where hopefully they can come together and co-parent effectively in future

Do you think a mediator would come from a place of telling dad and grandma that mum is cruel and doesn't have her child's best interests at heart? No, so neither should you, you will create animosity between these people which will worsen the situation for the future.

The £50paid is a huge amount if he is claiming benefits. The CSA says
Flat Rate
If you make less than £100 a week, or you’re on benefits, you’ll play a flat rate of maintenance of £7 per child per week (which can be deducted from your benefits). Also, if you’re living with someone who collects Income Support or Jobseeker’s Allowance, you play the flat rate.

Not saying this is a reason but if the child stays overnight with a non-custodial parent the maintenance can be reduced by 1/7th.

Norah

Smileless2012

It doesn't work that way Norah. The courts stipulate how much maintenance has to be paid. The son of a friend of mine has fallen behind with his payments. He's self employed and struggling financially. His ex is remarried, has a well paid job and is not dependant on his payments yet has stopped him from seeing his children and a result, my friend cannot see her GC.

My friend is not in a position to offer financial support. If parents in these situations want to be unreasonable there's little that can be done.

I understand the court stipulates the maintenance amount.

I also understood the sum to be based on half the child related costs/ bills - half of what custodial parent is spending. Are you saying that is incorrect?

Remarriage or mum's income has no impact on child's expenses - does it? If the child is half yours (whomever you are) the expenses are half yours.

This is manifestly and obviously inaccurate. The income of each of the parents is taken into account when assessing financial responsibility. Or do you think that a millionaire dad should pay half the child related costs the same as the unemployed mother? It works the other way as well, more and more women have incomes that are bigger than their exes. So they contribute more. It is difficult anyway to assess child related expenses. If one parent thinks dancing/music/acting lessons are an essential and the other thinks the child should spend more time outdoors should they have to pay half the lesson costs?

Not paying as you say is not the legal remedy Norah and neither is preventing a child from seeing the other parent.

My father did this to my mum but she never stopped me from seeing him and I wouldn't have thanked her if she had. Regular contact with both parents is what's best for the child.

That £50 is a huge drop in budget for a parent.

My concern would primarily be, how that is going to be rectified as soon as possible.
That's the difference between a mother and child having heating or food for a week.

Dad needs to support his child and gain the stability needed to go to court for regular visits.

That's what is best for the child...

Smileless2012

If the situation were that a mother was receiving child maintenance but refusing to allow the father to see his children, would you agree that the father should stop paying until contact is resumed?

I do realize that I'm treading on legal grounds I know nothing of, thus the myriad of questions prior to this.

To your question: If mum is receiving the legal child maintenance I should think the child should see the father and if the child is withheld the father should go to court as his legal remedy if he doesn't see his child.

I doubt not paying is the legal remedy.

However, I'm not a solicitor, I'll ask brother.

If the situation were that a mother was receiving child maintenance but refusing to allow the father to see his children, would you agree that the father should stop paying until contact is resumed?

Smileless2012

Bottom line is of course he should see his child. Mothers who prevent their children from seeing their fathers in cases like this are putting their own grievances before their children's well being and happiness.

I don't have a bias either way, for me it's what's best for the children not the adults.

I agree, in wider picture. However, get a job - don't slack. Even a part time job to help mum with expenses. Mums get caught out for funds, often.

I admit a bias towards hard done by mums.

Bottom line is of course he should see his child. Mothers who prevent their children from seeing their fathers in cases like this are putting their own grievances before their children's well being and happiness.

I don't have a bias either way, for me it's what's best for the children not the adults.

Smileless2012

Yes, dad's half of child related expenses but should struggling to find work and keep up with his payments mean his ex wife has the right to stop him from seeing his children?

The answer is no, but he doesn't have the means to go back to court.

Half the child related expenses should come from each parent. Non-custodial remedy is court, and that may be unaffordable for either parent.

I admit to a mum based bias. I think mums typically get shorted financially. And I really don't understand why, with all the notices I see in windows, at least part time work couldn't be fill-in money for the dad.

Bottom line, of course he should see his child and he should find work. If his mum sees his child is irrelevant as an argument.

Yes it is cruel Jane. As I posted earlier, it punishes the children, the father in this case and often paternal GP's too.

It's usually worked on a percentage of the non resident parents salary. As the Dad is out of work they will take a minimum amount per week which will be much lower than £50. The Mum shouldn't be sabotaging the visiting arrangements, even if he isn;t paying due to being out of work. It's cruel

Yes, dad's half of child related expenses but should struggling to find work and keep up with his payments mean his ex wife has the right to stop him from seeing his children?

The answer is no, but he doesn't have the means to go back to court.

Smileless2012

It doesn't work that way Norah. The courts stipulate how much maintenance has to be paid. The son of a friend of mine has fallen behind with his payments. He's self employed and struggling financially. His ex is remarried, has a well paid job and is not dependant on his payments yet has stopped him from seeing his children and a result, my friend cannot see her GC.

My friend is not in a position to offer financial support. If parents in these situations want to be unreasonable there's little that can be done.

I understand the court stipulates the maintenance amount.

I also understood the sum to be based on half the child related costs/ bills - half of what custodial parent is spending. Are you saying that is incorrect?

Remarriage or mum's income has no impact on child's expenses - does it? If the child is half yours (whomever you are) the expenses are half yours.

Presumably that parents Dad's half of the child related expenses/ bills.

It doesn't work that way Norah. The courts stipulate how much maintenance has to be paid. The son of a friend of mine has fallen behind with his payments. He's self employed and struggling financially. His ex is remarried, has a well paid job and is not dependant on his payments yet has stopped him from seeing his children and a result, my friend cannot see her GC.

My friend is not in a position to offer financial support. If parents in these situations want to be unreasonable there's little that can be done.

Smileless2012

It's not always the case that both parents can contribute equally and it is the parent who the children are not resident with who pays child maintenance.

I agree that GP's stepping in with financial support can be beneficial but that shouldn't be because if they don't they don't get to see their GC and their AC doesn't get to see his/her own children.

Why couldn't both parents pay towards their child's care if they both had income? I do realize the parent (dad in this case) who isn't living with the child is the one paying maintenance - to help pay the bills for the child. Presumably that parents half of the child related bills?

I don't think the GPs have to step in, it just seems as if they'd want to help their son with his lawful (I assume?) payment. If my child were unemployed and needed financial help with payments - I'd pay.

What am I misunderstanding?

It's not always the case that both parents can contribute equally and it is the parent who the children are not resident with who pays child maintenance.

I agree that GP's stepping in with financial support can be beneficial but that shouldn't be because if they don't they don't get to see their GC and their AC doesn't get to see his/her own children.

Assuming both parents contribute equally to the child by way of housing, food, clothing, and other necessities - I don't understand why the father is caught out with any less available funds to spend than the mother.

Regardless, I'm unaware because my life hasn't been touched by SILs who lose jobs and don't 'pay their share'.

Why would I understand the unfairness of a situation in which, perhaps, the mum is depending on the father to pay and he doesn't. Mum has bills, food to buy - perhaps GP stepping in with money is a good idea for all concerned.