Child Maintenance (CSA) questions (merged)

filigree_2

If the kids are teenagers then the oaf's days are numbered. Once they reach 18 or so he will lose the CSA payments, child benefit, child-related Income Support etc. He will be forced to struggle on the single man's Income Support which is about £50 a week if I remember correctly. His prospects of finding work after years of unemployment are pretty poor, too.

I know it's not much comfort now but one day Karma will bite him on the bum!

rubytuesday

The CSA doesnt cover things like trips etc they are extra. I put a claim in 3 years ago and still have'nt received any money. Now my ex has created a false business with false payslips so they can't track him down,Inland Revenue search unsuccessful so far but I'm hoping! He does give me 100 per calender month but it goes nowhere when I have a 13 year old daughter to support. And this is a man who claimed to earn 78 grand a couple of years ago!! The trouble is a lot of men resent paying because they think the money is going to the ex partner instead of remembering it pays for food, school dinners, heating ,lighting,clothes etc etc!

Older_but_not_wiser_2

From an absent parents point of view,, the CSA sucks big time.

My ex left me for someone else and took our little girl with her.

They both had good jobs, and were driving about in 2 new cars, taking 3 or 4 holidays abroad a year, and had money to burn.

I got saddled with all the debt from our relationship, and still had to pay £270 per month.

The CSA didn't care if I took on all our debt, they just wanted money off me as I was an easy target for them because I had a decent job.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that absent parents should contribute to their chidrens upbringing, but there has to be a fairer system in place.

jo@kent

I wanted to reply as i am the parent with care of two children from a previous relationship that ended 11yrs ago. The children are now 13 yrs and 14 yrs. Their father refused to give me any money for the first 9 yrs to help with the children. I struggled living on benifts when they were still tiny and then when my youngest went to school i started a two year college course and then went onto uni for a further two years. I did this so i could provide them with a reasonble life style and also felt that it was important for them to see me as a role model who works etc.

Although i had contacted the CSA for a number of years he managed to escape paying by claiming he was self employed or not working through sickness. He went onto have another child 3yrs ago and so settled down, got a job and a mortgage, therefore he had to begin to pay me £160 per month through the CSA. This went on for about nine months when his new partner left him in may. My maintenace stop abruptly in May this year when he had to pay his ex a large sum of money etc and i presume continue to support his other child.

I have remarried and although we both earn a good wage i cannot expect my husband to fund my children for everything whilst their father contributes nothing (doesn't even give them pocket money). I have never stopped them seeing him and he sees them regualry although this is instrumented by myself.

I have tried to give them all they need, they attend music clubs, horseriding etc and we have had holidays, usually camping trips. I am in debt because of giving them these things but why should they suffer because of there father's inability to consider there needs.

I am sure he would look at our lifestyle and think that there is no difficulties, he sees them being provided for and he does not have to worry as he knows i would always do this. I do not understand how anyone can just dismiss their children's needs, financial worry is never ending when you have children, and what will happen when they go on to uni (hopefully) just because they are 18yrs does that mean he will not consider that they need contiuing financial support. People like him who do not have the children in their care need to consider the best for their children, they had them they should be responsible for them, even if they do not live with them.

pandas66

Well my pet hate rears its head again.

To the OP, to pay £200 per month after your 3/7ths is deducted is an awful lot of money I agree, it should be further looked into and I would be shouting at the appropriate wing of the csa to get that done asap.
But to all the rest that do not have care of the kids and whinge about how you have to go without because your ex's children come first (or should) then good, thats how it should be.
Calley, its never a case of halves I can assure you. Whatever your ex pays TOWARDS the childrens cost would only be that. I think some parents without care (and new partners) would like to see a balance sheet of income and expences each and every month to justify how a certain person can go out/smoke/holidays/new clothes.
The unbalanced view held that if you don't have the children living with you but contribute to the household income gives you the right to judge on what you see but not what you know. Parents without care have only themselves to please, irrespective to new partners. If I or any other parent with care go out/do overtime/shopping etc paramount are my childrens welfare 1st.
They are now post babysitters but never the less I have to ensure their care 1st. I work around them at all times as most parents with care and working do. To pass judgement based on a weekend visit though usually has a great deal of fact left out. Mum has new clothes ! Yes, kids had them through out the year and will need them at Christmas time, but there is a sale on so I'll be quick and get some. Mum had a night out, yes maybe so but she was at a friends with a bottle of wine.
Why shouldn't parent with care get the bigger house? that parent has all the clothes/toys, goods and chatle of a child/children to accomodate. If all the whingers played their part as well as they could then there would be far less moaning. By the way trips etc are not included in the csa money, so so so much isn't taken account of. Its a totally unfair sysytem that needs an overhaul, theres no penalty system. No 2 or 3 strikes and your out, its plainly biased towards parents without care as I have said before its never a half payment of full cost of a child, thats why grandparents make up the shortfall sometimes and parent with care struggles in slience a lot of the time. They want to hold there head up and be counted for giving over and above to the children.

foreverskint

Panda I understand some of your arguments, but I think the posters on here are complaining not about the good Mothers, like yourself, but those that really don't worry about their children anad how some of their actions affevt the Child.

My Partners ex, quite frankley has been very welll off thank you very much since the marriage broke up. Yes she did get the bigger house, she got all of it and every thing in it too. She affords to on at least two foreign holidays a year has regular trips to the hairdresser, spends weekends in london seeing shows etc.
She rarely if ever cooks for her daughter, prefering her to fed by Maccy D etc.
She regularly buys herself lots of pairs of shoes, new outfits etc, but can't afford to spend money on her daughter.
Last week she stood there telling us all about the large two storey extension she and her husband are having built, but could we but a winter coat as she couldn't afford it.

I have recently returned to work one day a week, but you should have heard them ask who was going to look after the kids at holidays. So I'm still forced into a lower income so that she has a free childminder.

This is the type of parent that is being refered to, not the parents who don't feel that everyone owes them a lovivng.
Parents like her feel that she is 'owed', and will never loose the bitterness, and the CSA gives them the perfect weapon to fire

Rant over.

pandas66

I actually think I am the kind of parent that is ranted about. I have just come back from my 2nd foreign holiday this year. I would also ask ex for money towards a winter coat if he was around.
Its the perception of too many that if 'she' (usually) is doing anything in her life or with her life it is at the expence of the children and therefor absent parent is funding it. If you are contributing towards her getting 'free' child care it must also mean her outgoings are lower therefore her income can benefit her children in the long run. But as an upside it means you get hands on time with your 'step' children as does their Dad, win win situation.
Yes I do realise I am in a strong moral position as I have the children and won't be judged by people who are new partners of ex's. (If you get me) the rant comes from seeing many times myself and other parents with care being taken advantage child carewise and workwise. Many of us provide cheap child care during the week and the care of the laundry etc whilst ex picks the children up of a weekend for play. Trouble with life is its not fair which ever end of the stick that you get proded with.

calleyw

My husbands ex never thinks to ask before an event lets you know after the fact that they could not afford to buy X Y or the need extra money for a trip.

Can't mind read.

But looking at what each other buys works both ways. When someone my husbands ex or not comments they can't afford something but wastes money on smoking. Then I will comment.

And as you have said I will not be judged by ex's who think they have right to every penny of both mine and my husbands hard earn money and thinks they can comment on what I do or don't with mine or our money. As I am now an everyday part of my husbands life like it or not and that is not going to change.(that does not mean he does not think about his children or keeps in contact or takes an interest in what they are doing) And my income is nothing to do with her or just like any new partner for the ex' money is nothing to do with the CSA. Does not matter if I earn £5K a year or £50k a year.

So I think we agree to disagree.

And most of the people commenting here are people who are paying and having to shell out on top of the CSA payments because the parent with care is not using the money on what it should be the care of the children e.g clothes. And for a lot of abscent parents shared parenting is not practical e.g live to far away. We have just moved from a one bedroom flat as that was all we could afford at the time. Where do you suggest we put the children if we had them for days on end taking them away from there family and friends being bored because we don't have a telly.

Yours

Calley

Spendless

I think a lot of people forget that kids cost in more ways than the clothes they wear or food they eat.

I've already said that 2 kids cost me,even if someone was paying for the above items. Having more children would definately cost me more than having 2, even if we kept same size house. I'd need more beds and bedding for , extra wardrobes to keep clothes in, have to buy bigger table with enough seats. I'd have more loads to put in washing machine, and more ironing so my electric bill would be higher.

newfunk

Older_but_not_wiser wrote:

From an absent parents point of view,, the CSA sucks big time.

My ex left me for someone else and took our little girl with her.

They both had good jobs, and were driving about in 2 new cars, taking 3 or 4 holidays abroad a year, and had money to burn.

I got saddled with all the debt from our relationship, and still had to pay £270 per month.

The CSA didn't care if I took on all our debt, they just wanted money off me as I was an easy target for them because I had a decent job.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that absent parents should contribute to their chidrens upbringing, but there has to be a fairer system in place.

I totally agree, this happened to me!!

I give my ex more than enough! On top of the monthly amount, i have my girls to stay as much as is possible, but still this is not enough!! i pay for guitar, swimming and singing lessons on top of what i give her!!

The CSA didnt give a damn about the debt she left me with!