Why exactly is it considered perfectly acceptable if a child's?
Why exactly is it considered perfectly acceptable if a child's custodial parent does not want to spend a lot of their own money on a fancy private school for their child but unacceptable for a child's non-custodial parent to have the exact same wish? As others point out, the custodial parent usually carries quite a heavy load, both financially and emotionally, providing for the other needs of the child/ren. Statistics show that the custodial parent is most often the mother, and she will be substantially poorer than the non-custodial parent. Many people would at least raise an eyebrown over a parent who zooms past, showering gifts but doesnt carry the heavy loads on the ground. My late wife was a welfare worker with a Church-based agency and had a new client, a divorced woman with a number of small children from memory, four or five. The ex husband was wealthy and insisted that the children all attend private schools, for which he would pay the fees and a fixed amount toward their additional education expenses. Of course, the whole point was to ensure that she received no support, and, if anything, was made to feel pain over the marriage breakdown. So this put the woman in a precarious position. Not only did she have to feed and clothe herself and the children, but she was paying more for transport to a remote location, for school uniforms, for excursions and activities, than parents of children in a local state school would. The amount her ex paid toward those expenses didnt cover them and, additionally, he was erratic in making payments. Of course the time came when her income statements to Centrelink, on which her single parent benefits depended, got out of step with what her husband was paying, so Centrelink took her to court, not just for repayment of overpayments, but also for fraud. The problem was that her husbands lump sum payment of arrears, essentially to the school, took her assumed income well over the quarterly limit for receiving benefits. My wife tried to negotiate on behalf of the woman, but the Department wouldnt negotiate. So she found a solicitor who would take the case on pro-bono, and the court dismissed the Departments case and also decided that, as the Department was unreasonable in not taking the details into account, it should have no claim for reimbursement of any overpayments. Of course, the ex-husband was just being a complete bastard, trying to make life hard for his wife. There was more good news. While the case was underway, she met a man with whom my wife and I were both vaguely acquainted, who was good to her and supportive to her during the case. and the last my wife heard was that they were engaged some months after the case was resolved. Far too often. over-the-top generosity of a non-custodial parent toward the children is a subterfuge aimed to hurt the custodial parent. I wonder what the non-custodial parents motives are in this case. I just hope the question was not, in fact, asked by a non-custodial parent looking for support to beat up an ex partner. Theres nothing like having a sympathetic army behind you if you feel your position is weak.