CSA - One rule for me and another for his ex!

Getting_me_down

Please can someone advise me? I have recently split up with my partner and we have 1 year old child together. He also has another child from a previous relationship who is 10 years old and he is paying for him through the CSA.
At the moment I receive nothing from my estranged partner and I’m aware that his ex gets a whopping £450 on the old system! I know that he will not be able to afford to pay 2 lots of £450 and would not expect him to.
I read somewhere that his ex partner -if her payments are reduced when I put in a claim – will only come down gradually.
Is this true?? If so – how can the CSA justify this as her child will be getting much more than mine? Will I be on the new system and she on the old? Please help as I have tried to sort this out amicably but seem to be getting nowhere. :mad:

kelloggs36

His liability will be phased in over a period of 5 years - both will be on the new system, but his old one will reduce down over the 5 years when you will then receive 10% of his net income each - so she will probably get much less than she gets now.

Mr_Green_Genes

One person cannot be on old and new systems so if (when?) you make a claim, this will trigger his other case going over to CS2. There are 2 children so that means 20% of his net income, divided between you. His previous ex will get some transitional money but I'm not sure how that would work in this case.

I see you beat me to it, K

LizzieS_2

Why the interest in what the previous ex gets? Surely it is more important for you to receive an amount which is a fair contribution to your childs costs?

pinkpig08

I thought it was the general consensus that the children should be treated equally LizzieS, I think that is what the OP is getting at. Siblings with parents who live together are the same - I would have been quite put out if my sister got a lot more spent on her than me!

Getting_me_down

Thanks for your reply Kelloggs and Mr Green Genes- thats helpful although - to be clear will this mean that his other child will recieve more financial support than mine for a period of time? If its only for a short while i can live with it. Lizzie you have misinterpreted the question, i'm not greedy i just want both of his children to be treated the same and it is highly unfair if they are not. Thanks pink pig for reinforcing the point.

LizzieS_2

pinkpig08 wrote: »

I thought it was the general consensus that the children should be treated equally LizzieS, I think that is what the OP is getting at. Siblings with parents who live together are the same - I would have been quite put out if my sister got a lot more spent on her than me!

Pray do tell me how 2 children to 2 different mothers can be treated equally - think about it, at a 2nd divorce no court re-opens the first divorce papers to ensure both mothers have identical houses, identical incomes etc. The point I was making was purely that it is impossible to create 2 identical situations for different children so there is little point comparing who gets what - it changes nothing.

OP, I wasn't suggesting you were being greedy.

mazza111

I think she meant treated equally by the father....financially anyhoo.

LizzieS_2

I know what she meant, there's a much wider financial picture than simply csa though. I don't see the point in letting this situation get to her when it cannot be changed under the current rules.

pinkpig08

No, I didn't mean that they should live in identical houses! I meant that they should both receive equal treatment - or in this particular case equal financial contribution from the father, as mazza pointed out. How would it be fair if he were assessed to pay, say, £350 for the first child and £100 for the second?

The rules are not fair and it doesn't help the children.

LizzieS_2

pinkpig08 wrote: »

No, I didn't mean that they should live in identical houses! I meant that they should both receive equal treatment - or in this particular case equal financial contribution from the father, as mazza pointed out. How would it be fair if he were assessed to pay, say, £350 for the first child and £100 for the second?

The rules are not fair and it doesn't help the children.

I cannot see many children comparing notes over what their father (or mother) pays, so this is simply competing ex partners (not that OP tried to make it that way).

Children measure contributions in the non-financial sense - ie, attention.

Ultimately whatever is paid by the father/mother is not necessarily what does go into their respective households, and even where it does it doesn't mean that the children are able to have the same lifestyles.