Child Maintenance (CSA) questions (merged)

loftus

kelloggs36 wrote:

I don't agree that there are any who are forced to pay too much - there is a limit and whilst it is unfair that there are 2 CSA systems running at the moment, this is under plans of reform as the first system was recognised as being unfair to BOTH parents not just PWCs. Children cost a lot of money and unfortunately, the person not living with them has to pay something to the other person in relation to what they earn. In most cases their lives which they have now have come AFTER they have split and so they must factor their children into their financial futures, not just complain that they can't afford to pay. With the new system, it is pretty simple to do - expect to pay the % according to the number of children they have and they have the rest to live on. They already get a reduction if they meet somebody else who has children, or if they have more children of their own.

I disagree Kelloggs36 - although I couldn't offer you an alternative right now. For example if parents share care 50-50 this doesn't mean that no CM is payable (or so I understand it, I stand to be corrected) but that the maximum reduction of 50% applies. There is also no account taken of the relative financial positions of the parties.
I pay my wife CM we agreed between ourselves (in fact I now pay it directly to into my children's account because she "doesn't want my money"). My costs are far greater than hers - mainly because she got the lions share of the assets on divorce as well as none of the debts. She also receives Child Benefit and all the tax credits.
I have my children between 5 and 6 nights a fortnight so still have to maintain a house for them, heat it and light it, pay for food and clothes, school and college expenses. Day to day my expenses are probably greater than hers.
She has remarried and still lives in the former family home. Has a far smaller mortgage and the benefit of the proceeds of her new partners house sale.
Now I am not expecting her new husband to keep my children, but it is an economic fact of life that they all benefit from his financial input into running what is now his home too.
Our two households joint incomes from salaries are virtually the same - I do earn a lot more than her alone - but when you add in child benefit, tax credits, the transfer of wealth via maintenance and the fact that I pay more tax and NI than they do combined they are quite a lot better off.
I do not resent paying towards them in the slightest. But the CSA calculation is made deliberately simple for reasons I understand. This does not necessarily make it fair.

Scarlett1

loftus wrote:

pay for food and clothes, school and college expenses

you dont have to pay that because thats what maintenace is for, if your ex wife dont want your money then its her loss, but it shouldnt have to be yours though as you are effectively paying out twice if you put money into your childrens accounts what the CSA say you should pay

loftus

I do not expect my ex to pay for food, clothes and lunch money, trip money that occur when the kids are with me - why should she? She has said she doesn't want the money and says to put it into the kids accounts instead - her logic being that instead of them then asking her for money for school lunches, football subs etc when they are with her they can draw it out of their own accounts themselves. The idea is to make them more responsible (they are 15 and 18 just - I shall continue to pay the eldest the money when he goes to Uni, and as much more as I can afford.)

System

Thanks thesaint we are hoping that his wife's total refusal to discuss or attend mediation re contact from the day he found out about the affair will go some way in his favour. She has consistently referred him to her solicitor and when her only response re contact has been that she thinks she is being reasonable.

My brother has attended Relate initally upon finding out about the affair in an attempt to rescue the marriage and then to get as much information as possible to help the children through the transition.He has also trawled the internet and that's how he came up with the contact schedule I detailed above. I think he too would be happy with 2 nights every week.

I admire him too primarily because I have seen him grow so much stronger since the initial devastation of finding out about her affair. And since my SIL, being a bank official, nigh on controlled everything not just the finances, I think she has been surprised at how determined he is to still play a significant role in his kids lives.

thesaint

My ex refused to go to mediation, this was not even mentioned in court.
What we as normal laypeople think is fair and right is disregarded in court.
I would love the courts to be 'open' it was trialled last year, so maybe.
I used to think that men exaggarated the disparity in the court system, but it is there.

I would urge him to do what he believes in though, but bear in mind that he is not an equal by any means in the Family court system.

kelloggs36

loftus wrote:

I disagree Kelloggs36 - although I couldn't offer you an alternative right now. For example if parents share care 50-50 this doesn't mean that no CM is payable (or so I understand it, I stand to be corrected) but that the maximum reduction of 50% applies. Plus a further reduction per child. There is also no account taken of the relative financial positions of the parties. Because it bears no relevance
I pay my wife CM we agreed between ourselves (in fact I now pay it directly to into my children's account because she "doesn't want my money"). My costs are far greater than hers - mainly because she got the lions share of the assets on divorce as well as none of the debts. She also receives Child Benefit and all the tax credits.
I have my children between 5 and 6 nights a fortnight so still have to maintain a house for them, heat it and light it, pay for food and clothes, school and college expenses. Day to day my expenses are probably greater than hers.
She has remarried and still lives in the former family home. Has a far smaller mortgage and the benefit of the proceeds of her new partners house sale.
Now I am not expecting her new husband to keep my children, but it is an economic fact of life that they all benefit from his financial input into running what is now his home too. Our two households joint incomes from salaries are virtually the same - I do earn a lot more than her alone - but when you add in child benefit, tax credits, the transfer of wealth via maintenance and the fact that I pay more tax and NI than they do combined they are quite a lot better off.
I do not resent paying towards them in the slightest. But the CSA calculation is made deliberately simple for reasons I understand. This is because it was far too complicated before they changed it and many people complained that they could not plan properly as they could not work out what they would be expected to pay in maintenance; this has now been rectified to make it easy. Clearly it isn't a perfect system, and it can NEVER be so. Somebody is always going to have to pay money out to the other and this will cause resentment. The Government have made an attempt to rectify the difficulties of the past and have decided to start all over again.This does not necessarily make it fair.

I agree it will NEVER be completely fair - nothing in life is though really, is it?


Plus a further reduction of £7 per child.

LameDuck

How old are the children?? - I have a residence order for my 3 children - with an access order of every wednesday night from school to 7pm and 2 weekends in 3 for their mum to see them. She had an affair and ran off with the children. After an 18month wait and 2 interim orders for me to have access which was basically as you outlined previousy at first, then increased in the 2nd order before I got 'custody'. As for CSA I get £20 per month in total from her for the kids.

kelloggs36

Lameduck - do you know if this is a true reflection of her earnings? Unfortunately, statistics show that most women earn less than men and this could account for the very low CSA rate, unless she is on benefits which would mean that they are taking £5 per week which is all they CAN take.

loftus

This is what I never could get my head around....

I know in CSA terms the relative financial position of the two parties bears no relevance but that I feel is where the potential unfairness lies.
You can have a situation where the PWC and NRP have 50-50 residency of the children, they may also have relatively equal incomes, but under CSA rules one must pay the other CM based on 50% of the assessed figure less £7.
I presume this is based on the assumption - and probably the majority situation - of the PWC having their earnings potential limited by having care of the children. But there is no flexibility in the system - if the case is referred to the CSA - to account for other situations.
I hasten to add that taking into account just me and my ex this isn't the situation and so I am not saying that the unfairness applied to me - although since remarrying she is now is a far better position than I am so perhaps cheats do prosper but thats another story altogether

LameDuck

I know she works for her partner, between them they fiddle her earnings. I am in a fortunate position that I can still fund the activities that the children want to do i.e. Rugby for the 2 boys and dancing and gymnastics for my daughter. The Kids are 15, 12 & 10 the 2 oldest have absolutely nothing to do with their mum(their choice). If she can sleep at night knowing what she does then she's not a real mother anyway!!! The main thing for me is that the kids don't miss out. I do instead!!!!!!!