They are not my kids so why do I have to pay?

Loopy_Girl

Have to agree as well. It seems like the PWCP's just get on with having a relationship and moving on with the new family arrangments that they have...unlike the rake of whining NRPP's that I read.:mad:

Seriously ladies (and it nearly always is ladies that are NRPP's), don't like the thought of your money going to your partner's ex kids? Then don't bloody pursue the relationship and shack up with them then. Everyone has choices to make in life which is where I think the male PWCP (cos it nearly always is men) have the upper hand. They've thought about it, decided to go ahead and have a relationship with a woman who has kids, so just get on with it. Men are simple creatures - make their mind up, do it, and can't see the reason for moaning since they went in with their eyes wide open.;)

LizzieS_2

Agree loopyGirl. My OH and ex (along with a long list of other males I either know or know their partners) both have the attitude of as long as they can afford to buy xyz they really don't care a) whether the household income is enough, b) what happens to their remaining earnings.

seven-day-weekend

I may CHOOSE to subsidise someone else's children by choosing to live with their parent, but I'm blowed if I can see why the CSA should expect me to do so and take my wages into consideration for the privilege of doing so!

kelloggs36

They don't. They make sure you aren't being left with too little money. But it is your choice to accept all that goes with having a partner who is a parent - including the CSA and all its failings.

Strapped

Just to say to the OP, if you do decide to go to appeal, then be aware as well that there is a maximum % of the NRP's income that can be allowed as housing costs. Can't remember the % offhand, sorry (vaguely remember it being half?) so your appeal might fail anyway if your OH is on very low wages.

(For example: say he earns £10 per month, you earn £20 per month. Your housing costs are £20 per month. But the max housing costs he is allowed is £5. This is only 25% of the actual housing costs but is the max he is allowed, regardless of his share of total household income.)

HTH.

(I'm not touching the "moral" arguement with a bargepole Although I do think it's unfair that the CSA1 / CSA2 discrepancy continues - there should just be one set of rules for all I think. )

Kungfukitty

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I may CHOOSE to subsidise someone else's children by choosing to live with their parent, but I'm blowed if I can see why the CSA should expect me to do so and take my wages into consideration for the privilege of doing so!

Exactly!

By the way... the appeal has been heard!

We WON!!!!!!!!

So much for everyone who said we would loose. And without giving my details.

We can now CHOOSE when and how we support our children.

To all my critics... I love ALL our children and they will never go without.

At least now I am not expected to supplement my partner's ex partner's lifestyle. It still peeves me that she has three cars outside her house, one brand new, goes on holidays, wears designer clothes and the kdis turn up at ours looking like orphans, dirty and wearing clothes that no longer fit!

Now on to the battle for custody!

A very happy Kitty!

Prrrrrrrrrrr!

Loopy_Girl

Now I'm REALLY confused....2 days ago you weren't sure whether to proceed yet you have made your decision to proceed and the outcome has been verified all within 48 hours?

Amazing.......I found the appeals process took about 5 weeks minimum and that was with both parties agreement.

No one said you would lose either - no one at all.:rolleyes:

overthehills

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

Have to agree as well. It seems like the PWCP's just get on with having a relationship and moving on with the new family arrangments that they have...unlike the rake of whining NRPP's that I read.:mad:

Seriously ladies (and it nearly always is ladies that are NRPP's), don't like the thought of your money going to your partner's ex kids? Then don't bloody pursue the relationship and shack up with them then. .

I'm a nrpp, well, wife actually. So what you are saying is women should stay away from men who have kids so their income is not included and paid out to an ex to support their children? What should be happening is the CSA shouldn't be including the income of someone who has no biological attatchement to a child in the first place!

tamsin1982

overthehills wrote: »

I'm a nrpp, well, wife actually. So what you are saying is women should stay away from men who have kids so their income is not included and paid out to an ex to support their children? What should be happening is the CSA shouldn't be including the income of someone who has no biological attatchement to a child in the first place!

and they dont!! the only reason the csa need the nrpp's income details is to ensure there is enough money left in thier household to pay for the roof over thier head!

Calvinandhobbs

Kungfukitty wrote: »

Exactly!

By the way... the appeal has been heard!

We WON!!!!!!!!

We can now CHOOSE when and how we support our children.

To all my critics... I love ALL our children and they will never go without.

Now on to the battle for custody!

You entitled the thread "they're not my kids so why do I have to pay", so to now start ranting about them ALL being your children doesn't quite ring true


If you get custody will you understand if the other parent starts complaining about their payment, or will the CSA be totally correct then?


Or maybe, since you pay £6 a week and see that as reasonable, that is all you will expect from them?