There has been much debate and media discussion recently about whether Father’s should have more rights when it comes to bringing up children after a divorce or separation from their children’s Mother. It now looks as though family law could change to give Fathers more rights, though not to the extent that some have campaigned for. There are a number of ways children can be bought up after the separation of their parents, including equal parenting, shared parenting and single parenting. Depending on the circumstances of a family, there can be pros and cons to each of these.
Equal Parenting
Equal parenting is children living with each parent fifty percent of the time. This may be with each parent half a week each or with parent’s alternate weeks. In theory this seems the most ‘fair’ as far as the parents are concerned; they both get to spend an equal amount of time with their children. This can be good for children, with both parents having an influence on them. They get to see each parent regularly, and for a good amount of time, so there isn’t one parent who they rarely see. There are potential negatives on children, though. There can be a lack of routine, with children always on the move moving from one home to another and having two homes can make them feel as though they don’t really belong anywhere. Equal parenting can be a good solution to some families but can pose problems to others. It can only work if both parents live in the same area. They need to be able to get to school from either home and it isn’t ideal if they need to travel extensively twice a week.
Shared Parenting
Shared parenting is where both parents see their children on a regular basis, but time is not split fifty-fifty. This is the most common parenting arrangement after a divorce or separation. With a shared parenting arrangement, children live primarily with one parent but see the other regularly, for example every weekend or every other weekend. This can be suitable because children have an on-going relationship with both parents, meaning they have a male and female role model to look up to. It also means they have a routine and primary home. This can give them more of a sense of belonging that with equal parenting. The negative can be that they may see one parent as the ‘main parent’, with the other parent feeling not as involved as they would like to be.
Single Parenting
Many talk of the downside of single parenting, stating that it isn’t good for children. Statistics are often quoted stating that being bought up by a single parent means they are more likely to do poorly at school or turn to crime. A negative of single parenting can be that it results in a lack of either a male or female role model. Most would agree that in an ideal situation equal or shared parenting is a better option, but it does depend on the circumstances. Sometimes it isn’t suitable and there are times where one parent is not deemed to be a fit parent.
Deciding on the best parent arrangements post-separation can be very complicated. There are a number of issues to consider, with the best interests of children the most important. The best solution varies depending on the circumstances of individual children and their parents.
Andrew Marshall ©
Showing posts with label parenting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label parenting. Show all posts
Monday, February 20, 2012
Monday, February 13, 2012
Teaching Children about Money
Teaching children about money can be a valuable lesson. It can lead to them spending and saving money responsibly as adults. But how can parents help teach their children about this subject?
One way is to start to save on children’s behalf. Opening some sort of children’s savings account , such as a Junior ISA, is a good way of doing this. The JISA has recently replaced the Child Trust Fund, and one of the things the Labour government stated as a reason for introducing the Child Trust Fund scheme was that it could help children understand the value of saving. It could be said that the Junior ISA also has this benefit. If parents are making regular savings on behalf of their children and children see the value increasing over time then they can see how it will benefit them. The money is increasing the more their parents save. They will also be able to see that investing money increases the overall pot over time. Once they receive this money themselves they will really see the benefits. They will see how their parent’s saving for all this time has meant they have a pot of money for driving lessons, a car, a deposit on a home, or whatever they wish to spend it on. This will hopefully encourage them to save where possible once they are adults. When investing for children, involving them in the process may be a wise idea. Discussing the options, and even letting them contribute to decisions, will make them more involved and, therefore, more aware.
Simply making children aware of money, budgeting and general finance can teach them a lot. Seeing how money works in a variety of ways will educate them and could increase their financial responsibility once they become adults. Parents can involve them in the budgeting so they better understand that budgeting is often necessary and money cannot just be spent without considering the consequences.
As well as learning about how money works, learning about the value of things is also important. Children sometimes wonder why their parents cannot just buy them every toy they want, and teaching them about how much goes towards the essentials such rent or a mortgage, food and bills, can make them better understand why this isn’t possible and how little can be left at the end of a month. Understanding the price differences between different things can also be valuable.
What about understanding the value of work? This is obviously important for all children before they go out into the real world. One way of teaching them this is to pay them to do the household chores instead of just giving them pocket money. They can then see the value of working; they do the work, get paid for it, and then have the money to spend on something they want. Giving them the option of doing extra chores for a little extra money can also be a good lesson, as this is akin to working extra for a higher pay packet in the real world.
If children really want something, for example a new toy or game, explaining to them that they can have it once they save enough of their pocket money can teach them the value of saving. They see that if they commit to saving over a period of time then they will eventually see the rewards.
Parents will have differing views of how to teach their children about money and at which age to do so. While it may not be the best idea to make it seem as though money is all that matters, teaching children about how money works – the value of saving and the importance of budgeting – is a valuable lesson.
Andrew Marshall ©
One way is to start to save on children’s behalf. Opening some sort of children’s savings account , such as a Junior ISA, is a good way of doing this. The JISA has recently replaced the Child Trust Fund, and one of the things the Labour government stated as a reason for introducing the Child Trust Fund scheme was that it could help children understand the value of saving. It could be said that the Junior ISA also has this benefit. If parents are making regular savings on behalf of their children and children see the value increasing over time then they can see how it will benefit them. The money is increasing the more their parents save. They will also be able to see that investing money increases the overall pot over time. Once they receive this money themselves they will really see the benefits. They will see how their parent’s saving for all this time has meant they have a pot of money for driving lessons, a car, a deposit on a home, or whatever they wish to spend it on. This will hopefully encourage them to save where possible once they are adults. When investing for children, involving them in the process may be a wise idea. Discussing the options, and even letting them contribute to decisions, will make them more involved and, therefore, more aware.
Simply making children aware of money, budgeting and general finance can teach them a lot. Seeing how money works in a variety of ways will educate them and could increase their financial responsibility once they become adults. Parents can involve them in the budgeting so they better understand that budgeting is often necessary and money cannot just be spent without considering the consequences.
As well as learning about how money works, learning about the value of things is also important. Children sometimes wonder why their parents cannot just buy them every toy they want, and teaching them about how much goes towards the essentials such rent or a mortgage, food and bills, can make them better understand why this isn’t possible and how little can be left at the end of a month. Understanding the price differences between different things can also be valuable.
What about understanding the value of work? This is obviously important for all children before they go out into the real world. One way of teaching them this is to pay them to do the household chores instead of just giving them pocket money. They can then see the value of working; they do the work, get paid for it, and then have the money to spend on something they want. Giving them the option of doing extra chores for a little extra money can also be a good lesson, as this is akin to working extra for a higher pay packet in the real world.
If children really want something, for example a new toy or game, explaining to them that they can have it once they save enough of their pocket money can teach them the value of saving. They see that if they commit to saving over a period of time then they will eventually see the rewards.
Parents will have differing views of how to teach their children about money and at which age to do so. While it may not be the best idea to make it seem as though money is all that matters, teaching children about how money works – the value of saving and the importance of budgeting – is a valuable lesson.
Andrew Marshall ©
Friday, August 26, 2011
Does it really cost £200,000 to bring up a child?
According to research carried out by the insurance provider LV=, it now costs just over £200,000 to bring up a child from their birth to their twenty-first birthday. This works out at an average of around £9,500 a year.
Although many parents would agree that bringing up children is expensive, many would refute this figure, which is over a third of the total annual income of the average family today. The survey has taken certain areas of spending and looked at what they believe is the average cost within each of these having surveyed a group of parents.
Seeing that it costs over £200,000 to bring up a child is something that would scare many parents and parent to be. There is, however, much reason to believe it is possible to bring up children for much less than this.
The report states that it costs £52,000 for education, but does not include private education. It includes things such as uniform and school trips. This does seem a high figure if only taking into consideration things that are considered necessities or important.
Child care is named as the most expensive cost in bringing up children. However, not everyone requires child care. In many families only one parent works or family members can look after children while their parents are working. It could be argued, though, that it is mostly families on low or middle incomes that require child care as they can’t afford to have only one working parent.
Listed amongst the extras are driving lessons and a first car. This is not an essential though and many children pay for this themselves, or don’t learn to drive until after the age of twenty-one anyway. Therefore many parents will find that the high costs of their children learning to drive won’t be paid by them.
The LV= survey does not state whether presents from other family members are taken into consideration. Family and friends often buy items such as clothes and toys for children, something that brings down the cost for such items for parents. Over the course of an entire childhood this can make a big difference.
Holidays are stated as costing an average of over £600 a year for a child. Some might argue, though, that holidays are a luxury and something parents have a choice over. It is nice to go on holiday if you can afford to but not essential if you can’t. There is also the option of having a cheaper holiday closer to home rather than travelling abroad.
The study says that a child’s university years of the ages 18-21 cost £14,000 each, a total of £42,000. This is something many parents will not recognize. In the future parents will be unable to pay their children’s tuition fees for them should they choose to go into higher education. Some parents will help with related costs but many parents are unable to and therefore won’t. Taking off this £42,000 would mean an overall cost of close to £150,000 over twenty-one years.
Everything can be done cheaper. The quality/price of items that need to be bought for children are not given but there is a big difference in the range of items that can be bought, making it very difficult to give exact figures. To use one example, a top of the range pram can cost over £1,000 but you can get a perfectly adequate one for around £100. They are available for less than this if bought second-hand. The same could be said for hundreds of other items someone needs from the age of zero to twenty-one.
It is very hard, almost impossible, to say how much it really costs to bring up a child. Many of the headlines around the LV= study state that “it now costs over £200,000 to bring up a child”. They do not go into enough detail to show how much of a true statement this is and you can never say a specific amount that it takes to bring up a child. All families and their choices are different and in reality this figure varies massively from one family to the next.
Andrew Marshall ©
Although many parents would agree that bringing up children is expensive, many would refute this figure, which is over a third of the total annual income of the average family today. The survey has taken certain areas of spending and looked at what they believe is the average cost within each of these having surveyed a group of parents.
Seeing that it costs over £200,000 to bring up a child is something that would scare many parents and parent to be. There is, however, much reason to believe it is possible to bring up children for much less than this.
The report states that it costs £52,000 for education, but does not include private education. It includes things such as uniform and school trips. This does seem a high figure if only taking into consideration things that are considered necessities or important.
Child care is named as the most expensive cost in bringing up children. However, not everyone requires child care. In many families only one parent works or family members can look after children while their parents are working. It could be argued, though, that it is mostly families on low or middle incomes that require child care as they can’t afford to have only one working parent.
Listed amongst the extras are driving lessons and a first car. This is not an essential though and many children pay for this themselves, or don’t learn to drive until after the age of twenty-one anyway. Therefore many parents will find that the high costs of their children learning to drive won’t be paid by them.
The LV= survey does not state whether presents from other family members are taken into consideration. Family and friends often buy items such as clothes and toys for children, something that brings down the cost for such items for parents. Over the course of an entire childhood this can make a big difference.
Holidays are stated as costing an average of over £600 a year for a child. Some might argue, though, that holidays are a luxury and something parents have a choice over. It is nice to go on holiday if you can afford to but not essential if you can’t. There is also the option of having a cheaper holiday closer to home rather than travelling abroad.
The study says that a child’s university years of the ages 18-21 cost £14,000 each, a total of £42,000. This is something many parents will not recognize. In the future parents will be unable to pay their children’s tuition fees for them should they choose to go into higher education. Some parents will help with related costs but many parents are unable to and therefore won’t. Taking off this £42,000 would mean an overall cost of close to £150,000 over twenty-one years.
Everything can be done cheaper. The quality/price of items that need to be bought for children are not given but there is a big difference in the range of items that can be bought, making it very difficult to give exact figures. To use one example, a top of the range pram can cost over £1,000 but you can get a perfectly adequate one for around £100. They are available for less than this if bought second-hand. The same could be said for hundreds of other items someone needs from the age of zero to twenty-one.
It is very hard, almost impossible, to say how much it really costs to bring up a child. Many of the headlines around the LV= study state that “it now costs over £200,000 to bring up a child”. They do not go into enough detail to show how much of a true statement this is and you can never say a specific amount that it takes to bring up a child. All families and their choices are different and in reality this figure varies massively from one family to the next.
Andrew Marshall ©
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
UK Parenting and Family Trends
Over recent times there have been many changes in the way that families work. Families come in many shapes and sizes these days. There are married couples with or without children, cohabiting couples with or without children, and single parents.
Family Trends
Less people are getting married these days and over recent decades the number of people getting divorced has risen sharply. The make-up of families with children has changed significantly since the mid 1980’s. In the mid 80’s 83% of household with children consisted of a married couple. This had fallen to 67% by the mid 1990’s and is now under half of all families (albeit only just under at 49%). The number of cohabiting parents (those who live together but aren’t married) has increased massively. In the 1980’s they accounted for only 5% of all families, which had risen to 11% a decade later and to 18% a further ten years on. Families with only one parent have also increased; from 12% to 22% between the 1980’s and 1990’s and up to 33% now. Over a quarter of a century there has been a noticeable shift with a sharp fall in the percentage of families with two married parents which is now only 69% of what it was in the 1980’s. Both cohabiting couples with children and single parent families have increase over this period; cohabiting parents have increase more than three times over with single parent families rising by 57%.
Births Inside and Outside of Marriage
There has also been a significant change in the number of births inside and outside of marriage. In 1990 72% of births were to children of married parents. This had fallen to 61% by 2000 and is now only just over half of all children (52%).
Single Parent Types
The number of single parent families has been on the increase. The vast majority of single parents are Mothers. According to 2005 statistics, 9% of single parents are single Mothers who have never been married to their child’s Father. 6% are divorced Mothers and 4% separated Mothers. Only 1% of single parents are Fathers.
Couples with No Children
As well as changes in the shape of families with children, there has also been an increase in couples who choose not to have children. Between the early 1970’s and the mid 2000’s the percentage of couples without children rose from 19% to 25%.
Fewer people are married now than ever before. There are two basic reasons for this. The first of these is that fewer people are choosing to marry. Couples living together without getting married is generally seen as more acceptable and more are choosing to do this. People are putting off getting married, either altogether or waiting until later in life. The other reason for less people in marriage is the divorce rate, which has increased dramatically over the past few decades.
Gone are the days of a typical family unit. People choose to live in all sorts of ways and society consists of families of many different types.
Andrew Marshall (c)
Family Trends
Less people are getting married these days and over recent decades the number of people getting divorced has risen sharply. The make-up of families with children has changed significantly since the mid 1980’s. In the mid 80’s 83% of household with children consisted of a married couple. This had fallen to 67% by the mid 1990’s and is now under half of all families (albeit only just under at 49%). The number of cohabiting parents (those who live together but aren’t married) has increased massively. In the 1980’s they accounted for only 5% of all families, which had risen to 11% a decade later and to 18% a further ten years on. Families with only one parent have also increased; from 12% to 22% between the 1980’s and 1990’s and up to 33% now. Over a quarter of a century there has been a noticeable shift with a sharp fall in the percentage of families with two married parents which is now only 69% of what it was in the 1980’s. Both cohabiting couples with children and single parent families have increase over this period; cohabiting parents have increase more than three times over with single parent families rising by 57%.
Births Inside and Outside of Marriage
There has also been a significant change in the number of births inside and outside of marriage. In 1990 72% of births were to children of married parents. This had fallen to 61% by 2000 and is now only just over half of all children (52%).
Single Parent Types
The number of single parent families has been on the increase. The vast majority of single parents are Mothers. According to 2005 statistics, 9% of single parents are single Mothers who have never been married to their child’s Father. 6% are divorced Mothers and 4% separated Mothers. Only 1% of single parents are Fathers.
Couples with No Children
As well as changes in the shape of families with children, there has also been an increase in couples who choose not to have children. Between the early 1970’s and the mid 2000’s the percentage of couples without children rose from 19% to 25%.
Fewer people are married now than ever before. There are two basic reasons for this. The first of these is that fewer people are choosing to marry. Couples living together without getting married is generally seen as more acceptable and more are choosing to do this. People are putting off getting married, either altogether or waiting until later in life. The other reason for less people in marriage is the divorce rate, which has increased dramatically over the past few decades.
Gone are the days of a typical family unit. People choose to live in all sorts of ways and society consists of families of many different types.
Andrew Marshall (c)
Friday, May 20, 2011
Child Custody in an International Divorce
Child custody after a divorce where parents live in different countries can be very complex. The law regarding child custody and visitation rights for the parent without prime custody may vary from country to country. And once it has been decided what will happen regarding custody, being in different countries can still cause many issues.
Child Custody in International Divorces
Deciding what happens with children after a divorce is never easy. It is hard enough if the parents live around the corner to each other, let alone if they live in different parts of the world. Whether one of the divorcing couple has already moved to a different country or would like to in future it has an obvious impact on children. It certainly won’t be as easy to visit the parent they don’t live with as it involves travelling abroad.
Where Should the Children Live?
After any divorce it has to be decided where children should live, and this is often a difficult choice. Sometimes parents may decide between themselves, other times it has to be decided by the courts. In an international divorce it might be decided that children should live in the country where they already do. They will already have friends there and be used to the culture, whereas it could be very difficult to settle in if moving to a different country. There are times, though, where this might not be the case. The parent living in a different country might be better placed to look after the children on a permanent basis. From a parent’s point of view, living in different countries might make gaining custody even more important as they will not be able to see their children as regularly if they don’t.
Different Laws in Different Countries
If the two parents already live in different countries before the divorce takes place then it needs to be decided which country the divorce takes place in. Depending which countries are involved, this can make the whole divorce very complicated for a variety of reasons. Amongst these reasons are the child custody laws in each country. If both parents are seeking custody then which country the decision is made in can suit different parties. This can lead to a dispute over where the divorce should take place and could result in a longer process.
Visitation Agreements
For parents whose children do not live with them visiting them after an international divorce can be very difficult. The reason for this is obvious; they live in a different country so it involves either the parent or the children travelling. This means things are usually very different than after a divorce where only one country is involved. It is fairly common for parents who don’t live with their children to see them every other weekend or for an evening or two every week. This is not as simple when they are in a different country. Instead of a short time spent together on a regular basis this can mean spending longer periods together on a less regular basis.
Andrew Marshall (c)
Child Custody in International Divorces
Deciding what happens with children after a divorce is never easy. It is hard enough if the parents live around the corner to each other, let alone if they live in different parts of the world. Whether one of the divorcing couple has already moved to a different country or would like to in future it has an obvious impact on children. It certainly won’t be as easy to visit the parent they don’t live with as it involves travelling abroad.
Where Should the Children Live?
After any divorce it has to be decided where children should live, and this is often a difficult choice. Sometimes parents may decide between themselves, other times it has to be decided by the courts. In an international divorce it might be decided that children should live in the country where they already do. They will already have friends there and be used to the culture, whereas it could be very difficult to settle in if moving to a different country. There are times, though, where this might not be the case. The parent living in a different country might be better placed to look after the children on a permanent basis. From a parent’s point of view, living in different countries might make gaining custody even more important as they will not be able to see their children as regularly if they don’t.
Different Laws in Different Countries
If the two parents already live in different countries before the divorce takes place then it needs to be decided which country the divorce takes place in. Depending which countries are involved, this can make the whole divorce very complicated for a variety of reasons. Amongst these reasons are the child custody laws in each country. If both parents are seeking custody then which country the decision is made in can suit different parties. This can lead to a dispute over where the divorce should take place and could result in a longer process.
Visitation Agreements
For parents whose children do not live with them visiting them after an international divorce can be very difficult. The reason for this is obvious; they live in a different country so it involves either the parent or the children travelling. This means things are usually very different than after a divorce where only one country is involved. It is fairly common for parents who don’t live with their children to see them every other weekend or for an evening or two every week. This is not as simple when they are in a different country. Instead of a short time spent together on a regular basis this can mean spending longer periods together on a less regular basis.
Andrew Marshall (c)
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
New Paternity Laws – A Summary
New paternity laws came into action this April, enabling Father’s to take more time off work after to the birth of their children. Prior to this change the paternity leave that employers had to give their employees was only two weeks; a maximum of twenty-six weeks can now be taken.
Mother’s and Father’s will now be able to split the parental time they take off after their children are born. Women are entitled to a maximum of 52 weeks and men to a maximum of 28 weeks (two weeks plus the additional twenty-six weeks), but a Mother and Father will not both be able to take the maximum. It is up to each family; they may decide the time should mostly go to the Mother, they may decide the time should mostly go to the Father, or they may split it more evenly. It really is up to them.
Under the new rules, the paternity leave does not have to be in one go but must be taken in weekly blocks. Each period must be an exact number of weeks (anywhere between one and twenty-six) but cannot be three days, for example.
For Father’s to take paternity leave they must have been employed with their current employer for at least the last six months by the end of the fifteenth week before the expected week of the birth of their child. Apart from the Mother, he must be the main person responsible for the child’s upbringing. Any paternity leave needs to be taken within a year of the birth.
There are several positives for families due to this change, some of which are outlined below:
Father’s will be able to spend more time with their new born children.
In some families the Mother earns more than the Father. In these cases it may make more sense for the Mother to return to work and the Father to take longer parental leave. The alternative before may have been child care, which is expensive and may not be ideal so soon.
More shared parenting will be possible in the early weeks of a child’s life. This is both a positive for the parents and the child.
Families can be more flexible. Previously it was not possible to be flexible to the needs of each individual family. It is no longer always the case that men work the most or earn the most, so it is not always suitable for women to have longer off. Now parents can choose which parent has parental time off to suite their family circumstances.
Something that has been in the news around this subject is the reaction of businesses, with some pointing out the extra burden of employees who will not be at work for a period of time. This has especially been a concern for small as larger corporation may be better placed to cope with the changes. In reality, though, this shouldn’t be an issue. As families must split the parental leave it is not actually extra leave. Male employees may have more time off, but this might be helped by female employees having less time off. Although it will affect different businesses in different ways, in theory it should balance itself out.
Andrew Marshall (c)
Mother’s and Father’s will now be able to split the parental time they take off after their children are born. Women are entitled to a maximum of 52 weeks and men to a maximum of 28 weeks (two weeks plus the additional twenty-six weeks), but a Mother and Father will not both be able to take the maximum. It is up to each family; they may decide the time should mostly go to the Mother, they may decide the time should mostly go to the Father, or they may split it more evenly. It really is up to them.
Under the new rules, the paternity leave does not have to be in one go but must be taken in weekly blocks. Each period must be an exact number of weeks (anywhere between one and twenty-six) but cannot be three days, for example.
For Father’s to take paternity leave they must have been employed with their current employer for at least the last six months by the end of the fifteenth week before the expected week of the birth of their child. Apart from the Mother, he must be the main person responsible for the child’s upbringing. Any paternity leave needs to be taken within a year of the birth.
There are several positives for families due to this change, some of which are outlined below:
Father’s will be able to spend more time with their new born children.
In some families the Mother earns more than the Father. In these cases it may make more sense for the Mother to return to work and the Father to take longer parental leave. The alternative before may have been child care, which is expensive and may not be ideal so soon.
More shared parenting will be possible in the early weeks of a child’s life. This is both a positive for the parents and the child.
Families can be more flexible. Previously it was not possible to be flexible to the needs of each individual family. It is no longer always the case that men work the most or earn the most, so it is not always suitable for women to have longer off. Now parents can choose which parent has parental time off to suite their family circumstances.
Something that has been in the news around this subject is the reaction of businesses, with some pointing out the extra burden of employees who will not be at work for a period of time. This has especially been a concern for small as larger corporation may be better placed to cope with the changes. In reality, though, this shouldn’t be an issue. As families must split the parental leave it is not actually extra leave. Male employees may have more time off, but this might be helped by female employees having less time off. Although it will affect different businesses in different ways, in theory it should balance itself out.
Andrew Marshall (c)
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Is the Cost of Bringing Up Children Rising?
A survey has shown that a high number of parents in the UK are choosing to only have one child due to financial concerns. When parents of one child, who don’t plan to have a second, were asked why they wouldn’t, 58% said money was the main reason.
The financial crisis is not likely to have helped but it is not thought to be the main reason. This is thought to be a general rise in living costs, and in particular a rise in the costs of bringing up children.
But are costs really rising, or do people just want more than they did in previous times? It has been claimed that it costs between £210,000 and £270,000 for a family to bring up their first child. But is this really the case, or does this include unnecessary luxuries?
In many families both parents must work, as the income of one is not enough to support the entire family. This means child care is required, something that is expensive these days; an average of around £150 a week for each child. If one parent earns the minimum wage and pays for child care, they only have around £50 a week left after child care, tax and national insurance. And if the other parent also earns the minimum wage they would only have £250 a week left, or just over £1,000 a month. Most of this could be for rent or a mortgage alone. This shows how less well-off families can struggle, even if both parents are working full-time.
Although house prices have fallen a little during the financial crisis, they are still very high compared to historical prices, a trend that is likely to continue long-term. So for families not yet on the housing ladder, but who would like to be, it can be a struggle. This will also be the case if a couple would like more children, and would need a bigger home to do so. Food and petrol are also rising costs, as are utilities.
The cost of education is something that has been in the news a lot recently. Education up to, and including, A-levels is free but there are costs involved, such as school trips and uniforms. Then there is the much debated university, the cost of which will be rising dramatically. This has been one of the reasons cited for parents not choosing to have more children. However, due to the loan system – whereby students borrow the money and pay it back gradually as they earn more – parent won’t actually have to foot the bill. The truth is that, while many parents would like to help fund higher education, it is not the necessity that many believe. Part of the studies looking at how much it costs to bring a child up considered private education, something that could be described as something of a luxury.
Another rising cost that some have mentioned as a reason for the increasing costs of bringing up children is that items children want, from toys and games consoles to branded clothing, cost more. Some parents have even said that their children demand branded clothing. This though, is still a choice, not a necessity like food or accommodation. Luxury holidays have also been mentioned, something that is also unessential. Looking back 50 years (when the average family was larger) it was rare for people to go abroad for a holiday every year.
Many parents want to help children prepare financially for their future’s, for example by paying regularly into a children’s savings account. Some would argue that this is more difficult now, but again it could be seen as more of a luxury for those who can afford to than a necessity.
In many ways it is difficult to judge the cost of bringing up children, and whether or not it is rising. Some of the rising costs mentioned above are unavoidable, such as food, child care (if both parents are working) and petrol or public transport. Others are less so, but maybe something people are less prepared to go without than they used to be. Compared to 70, 50, or even 20 years ago people are comparably better off, but that doesn’t mean the cost of bringing up children hasn’t risen. Plus, there could be a trend for parents preferring to do everything they can for one child instead of having to be more careful with money and have two.
Andrew Marshall (c)
The financial crisis is not likely to have helped but it is not thought to be the main reason. This is thought to be a general rise in living costs, and in particular a rise in the costs of bringing up children.
But are costs really rising, or do people just want more than they did in previous times? It has been claimed that it costs between £210,000 and £270,000 for a family to bring up their first child. But is this really the case, or does this include unnecessary luxuries?
In many families both parents must work, as the income of one is not enough to support the entire family. This means child care is required, something that is expensive these days; an average of around £150 a week for each child. If one parent earns the minimum wage and pays for child care, they only have around £50 a week left after child care, tax and national insurance. And if the other parent also earns the minimum wage they would only have £250 a week left, or just over £1,000 a month. Most of this could be for rent or a mortgage alone. This shows how less well-off families can struggle, even if both parents are working full-time.
Although house prices have fallen a little during the financial crisis, they are still very high compared to historical prices, a trend that is likely to continue long-term. So for families not yet on the housing ladder, but who would like to be, it can be a struggle. This will also be the case if a couple would like more children, and would need a bigger home to do so. Food and petrol are also rising costs, as are utilities.
The cost of education is something that has been in the news a lot recently. Education up to, and including, A-levels is free but there are costs involved, such as school trips and uniforms. Then there is the much debated university, the cost of which will be rising dramatically. This has been one of the reasons cited for parents not choosing to have more children. However, due to the loan system – whereby students borrow the money and pay it back gradually as they earn more – parent won’t actually have to foot the bill. The truth is that, while many parents would like to help fund higher education, it is not the necessity that many believe. Part of the studies looking at how much it costs to bring a child up considered private education, something that could be described as something of a luxury.
Another rising cost that some have mentioned as a reason for the increasing costs of bringing up children is that items children want, from toys and games consoles to branded clothing, cost more. Some parents have even said that their children demand branded clothing. This though, is still a choice, not a necessity like food or accommodation. Luxury holidays have also been mentioned, something that is also unessential. Looking back 50 years (when the average family was larger) it was rare for people to go abroad for a holiday every year.
Many parents want to help children prepare financially for their future’s, for example by paying regularly into a children’s savings account. Some would argue that this is more difficult now, but again it could be seen as more of a luxury for those who can afford to than a necessity.
In many ways it is difficult to judge the cost of bringing up children, and whether or not it is rising. Some of the rising costs mentioned above are unavoidable, such as food, child care (if both parents are working) and petrol or public transport. Others are less so, but maybe something people are less prepared to go without than they used to be. Compared to 70, 50, or even 20 years ago people are comparably better off, but that doesn’t mean the cost of bringing up children hasn’t risen. Plus, there could be a trend for parents preferring to do everything they can for one child instead of having to be more careful with money and have two.
Andrew Marshall (c)
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
How Parenting has been affected by the Recession
The current recession is having its effect on many people. This can be even more of a problem for parents. It is expensive bringing up children so when parents suffer financial problems it can become even more of a problem than for others. If you have a family to support you have many more things to worry about than when supporting just yourself. And nobody wants to feel they are letting their family down.
Children are constantly growing, so need new clothes regularly; much more often than adult. They also need feeding, and all parents like to spoil their children once in a while. This all adds up, and during time of financial trouble this can be a real burden.
The recession has caused many problems making it more difficult for parents. Unemployment has risen significantly, and currently stand at a little under two and a half million in the UK. Many others have been forced to reduce their hours though, while pay rises have become less common, meaning the cost of living in real terms has gone up for a lot of people. When parents are suddenly faced with receiving no income, or a lower income than before, it can make supporting their children very difficult. With fewer jobs available, it means many who have lost their jobs have found it difficult to find work again. Manufacturing has taken a particular hit, and many in these jobs have never worked in any other industry, meaning they lack the skills to find work elsewhere.
Being unemployed has many knock on effects. Many (both due to unemployment and other reasons) have come into money problems. The number of people struggling to pay their mortgage has risen sharply causing some to lose their home, something that is unsettling for children. Unmanageable debt has also been an issue, all adding to families’ woes and making parenting even more difficult.
Single parents can especially suffer financially. To support their children they may have to work full-time, meaning the added expense of child care. Many believe this is not ideal and that it is better for at least one parent to be at home looking after the children but this is not feasible for all, especially single parents. Single parents who do stay at home, or work part-time, are obviously more likely to find times tough financially.
In the UK, as well as much of the world, family law dictates that divorced parent usually have to pay maintenance on behalf of their children. This money assists the other parent in bringing up the children. Some divorced parents have found it tough paying the normal maintenance, causing more problems for the parent living with their children. This may only be temporary due to the current climate but many need this money now. Most divorced parents want to pay for their children but it is not always that simple. Some are currently faced with a situation where it is just not possible. This can all lead to further debt for both parents living with, and without, their children.
All sorts of people are suffering due to the recession. This can be particularly hard if you have children to look after. Having children is expensive, so money troubles are going to have even more of an impact.
Andrew Marshall (c)
Steel and Shamash are a Family Law Solicitors based in London
Children are constantly growing, so need new clothes regularly; much more often than adult. They also need feeding, and all parents like to spoil their children once in a while. This all adds up, and during time of financial trouble this can be a real burden.
The recession has caused many problems making it more difficult for parents. Unemployment has risen significantly, and currently stand at a little under two and a half million in the UK. Many others have been forced to reduce their hours though, while pay rises have become less common, meaning the cost of living in real terms has gone up for a lot of people. When parents are suddenly faced with receiving no income, or a lower income than before, it can make supporting their children very difficult. With fewer jobs available, it means many who have lost their jobs have found it difficult to find work again. Manufacturing has taken a particular hit, and many in these jobs have never worked in any other industry, meaning they lack the skills to find work elsewhere.
Being unemployed has many knock on effects. Many (both due to unemployment and other reasons) have come into money problems. The number of people struggling to pay their mortgage has risen sharply causing some to lose their home, something that is unsettling for children. Unmanageable debt has also been an issue, all adding to families’ woes and making parenting even more difficult.
Single parents can especially suffer financially. To support their children they may have to work full-time, meaning the added expense of child care. Many believe this is not ideal and that it is better for at least one parent to be at home looking after the children but this is not feasible for all, especially single parents. Single parents who do stay at home, or work part-time, are obviously more likely to find times tough financially.
In the UK, as well as much of the world, family law dictates that divorced parent usually have to pay maintenance on behalf of their children. This money assists the other parent in bringing up the children. Some divorced parents have found it tough paying the normal maintenance, causing more problems for the parent living with their children. This may only be temporary due to the current climate but many need this money now. Most divorced parents want to pay for their children but it is not always that simple. Some are currently faced with a situation where it is just not possible. This can all lead to further debt for both parents living with, and without, their children.
All sorts of people are suffering due to the recession. This can be particularly hard if you have children to look after. Having children is expensive, so money troubles are going to have even more of an impact.
Andrew Marshall (c)
Steel and Shamash are a Family Law Solicitors based in London
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Divorced Parents using technology to keep in touch with Children
With advancements in technology divorced parents are using communication technology to have more contact with their children they do not live with. There are many more means of having contact and these are often being utilised by those in this situation. It is even something that has been included in some divorce agreements in the United States. It may not be the same as actually being with children, but it can make not being with them easier.
The telephone is the most obvious way of separated parents and children keeping in touch. It means they can speak regularly. This is especially the case with the cheaper landline calls and deals that are now available. Many children now have their own mobile phones, making it even easier to keep in touch no matter where they are. VoIP technology has also helped. VoIP can be used in a similar way as telephone calls, but it uses a broadband internet connection instead of a landline connection. It is significantly cheaper, and can even be free with some providers. This means it is affordable for divorced parents to speak with their children more often.
Text messaging and email have also made contact easier. If a parent and child have something interesting to tell each other they can just send a quick text message, which takes a matter of seconds. It means they can constantly be in touch with every aspect of each others lives.
Web Cams are another technology being utilised. It allows parents and their children to not only hear each others voices, but to see each other. In some ways it is like being in the same rooms. It is obviously not like living together, but they can physically see each other more. It means parents may feel like they are seeing more of their child growing up than they would otherwise. This is especially used by parents and children who live far from each other and do not see each other as much as they would like.
In America some legal agreements include a certain amount of time spent by parents and children communicating in these ways. Some believe that this helps them build their relationship, but others would argue it should not count towards time spent together as they are not physically there together in the same location. Therefore it may not be appropriate that it counts towards time spent together. However it could be extra time on top of the time they are together, and could still be part of an agreement. Many would say that it should be up to the family to decide, and especially the child, or something that can just be used when deemed appropriate or when it suits all parties.
Andrew Marshall ©
Family Law in Partnership - Divorce Solicitors London
Interoute One - Business VoIP
The telephone is the most obvious way of separated parents and children keeping in touch. It means they can speak regularly. This is especially the case with the cheaper landline calls and deals that are now available. Many children now have their own mobile phones, making it even easier to keep in touch no matter where they are. VoIP technology has also helped. VoIP can be used in a similar way as telephone calls, but it uses a broadband internet connection instead of a landline connection. It is significantly cheaper, and can even be free with some providers. This means it is affordable for divorced parents to speak with their children more often.
Text messaging and email have also made contact easier. If a parent and child have something interesting to tell each other they can just send a quick text message, which takes a matter of seconds. It means they can constantly be in touch with every aspect of each others lives.
Web Cams are another technology being utilised. It allows parents and their children to not only hear each others voices, but to see each other. In some ways it is like being in the same rooms. It is obviously not like living together, but they can physically see each other more. It means parents may feel like they are seeing more of their child growing up than they would otherwise. This is especially used by parents and children who live far from each other and do not see each other as much as they would like.
In America some legal agreements include a certain amount of time spent by parents and children communicating in these ways. Some believe that this helps them build their relationship, but others would argue it should not count towards time spent together as they are not physically there together in the same location. Therefore it may not be appropriate that it counts towards time spent together. However it could be extra time on top of the time they are together, and could still be part of an agreement. Many would say that it should be up to the family to decide, and especially the child, or something that can just be used when deemed appropriate or when it suits all parties.
Andrew Marshall ©
Family Law in Partnership - Divorce Solicitors London
Interoute One - Business VoIP
Friday, September 18, 2009
The Child Trust Fund after seven years
Recently the first batch of children to receive their Child Trust Fund were given their second instalments. Since September 2002 all parents of new born babies in the UK have been given a £250 Child Trust Fund voucher to invest on behalf of their child. They get another £250 sum when they child turns seven, something that the first to receive this are now getting. 700,000 children will be receiving this second instalment in 2009, meaning the government will be paying out around £460 million as part of the scheme, twice what it has been paying out in previous years. There are now 4 million children entitled to the Chid Trust Fund, with £2 billion having been paid into accounts; an average of £500 per child.
The merits and success of the Child Trust Fund have been much debated. A large number of parents have failed to take up the option of a child trust fund. According to the Observer on 23rd August 2009, approximately a quarter of parents did not invest their CTF voucher within a year of their child’s birth, meaning it was automatically invested in a stakeholders account. This would suggest that it has not been that successful. There are other statistics to say that those who have invested the voucher are embracing the scheme though. TISA says that 23.3% of those who have taken up the scheme are making regular direct debit payment into their child’s account, with a further 6% paying an annual lump sum. Therefore it is hard to judge how successful it has been.
Many would argue that the government could do without having to payout an extra £230 million this year (and every year from now on) with the current economical situation. Some are suggesting that the scheme could be scrapped in future. The Liberal Democrats have stated that they would like the scheme to be discontinued as the money could be better spent in other ways, such as education. The Conservative Party, though, currently have no such plans and say that their policy on the Child Trust Fund is the same as that of Labour, who came up with the policy.
How successful the Child Trust Fund will be when it comes to the amount a child will receive upon turning 18 depends on the amount of investment by parents and other family and friends apart from the two £250 instalments from the government. Based on no extra money being paid into the account, the Daily Mail’s Barry Collins claimed that once inflation is taken into account the total amount will not be enough to buy a mountain bike. He says that the original £250 will turn into approximately (depending on interest) £410, although this doesn’t include the second £250 instalment.
With regular payments though, the story could be much different. According to a report on the Channel 4 website, Nationwide calculate that with the maximum £1,200 invested by parents a year the accumulated amount would be around £24,000, certainly enough to get an 18 year old on his or her way in life. If parent are able to invest the child benefit they receive (£20 for the first child) this would go a significant way towards this.
Judging the overall success of the Child Trust Fund is not easy. If taken advantage of by parents the money can accumulate significantly, although some would argue that they could invest themselves anyways, and the £500 from the government would not make that much difference. The main problem is that there are still many parents not taking up the scheme, although this has increased over the last couple of years.
Andrew Marshall ©
Child Trust Fund
The merits and success of the Child Trust Fund have been much debated. A large number of parents have failed to take up the option of a child trust fund. According to the Observer on 23rd August 2009, approximately a quarter of parents did not invest their CTF voucher within a year of their child’s birth, meaning it was automatically invested in a stakeholders account. This would suggest that it has not been that successful. There are other statistics to say that those who have invested the voucher are embracing the scheme though. TISA says that 23.3% of those who have taken up the scheme are making regular direct debit payment into their child’s account, with a further 6% paying an annual lump sum. Therefore it is hard to judge how successful it has been.
Many would argue that the government could do without having to payout an extra £230 million this year (and every year from now on) with the current economical situation. Some are suggesting that the scheme could be scrapped in future. The Liberal Democrats have stated that they would like the scheme to be discontinued as the money could be better spent in other ways, such as education. The Conservative Party, though, currently have no such plans and say that their policy on the Child Trust Fund is the same as that of Labour, who came up with the policy.
How successful the Child Trust Fund will be when it comes to the amount a child will receive upon turning 18 depends on the amount of investment by parents and other family and friends apart from the two £250 instalments from the government. Based on no extra money being paid into the account, the Daily Mail’s Barry Collins claimed that once inflation is taken into account the total amount will not be enough to buy a mountain bike. He says that the original £250 will turn into approximately (depending on interest) £410, although this doesn’t include the second £250 instalment.
With regular payments though, the story could be much different. According to a report on the Channel 4 website, Nationwide calculate that with the maximum £1,200 invested by parents a year the accumulated amount would be around £24,000, certainly enough to get an 18 year old on his or her way in life. If parent are able to invest the child benefit they receive (£20 for the first child) this would go a significant way towards this.
Judging the overall success of the Child Trust Fund is not easy. If taken advantage of by parents the money can accumulate significantly, although some would argue that they could invest themselves anyways, and the £500 from the government would not make that much difference. The main problem is that there are still many parents not taking up the scheme, although this has increased over the last couple of years.
Andrew Marshall ©
Child Trust Fund
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)