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

Loopy_Girl

I'm still trying to fathom out what the appeal is for anyway as according to post 38, the case was moved to CSA2 (cos that happens all the time obviously...dearie me, hubby must have been playing away to get another case on the go for that:rolleyes: ). CSA2 doesn't take account of the NRPP's income....



*come in number 5, your time is up*!!!!!!:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

kelloggs36

It looks like the OP put in the appeal and then had contact from the appeals dept which was when she first posted so it was already in the appeals system - hence most of the time had already elapsed - all they had to do was to look at it again and then decide if the case was correct or not.

She said it was CS2 but as I explained, it was probably based on the computer system of CS2 and not the actual case itself moving over as it involved housing costs which as you know, aren't relevant under CS2 type cases. This doesn't look like a case which went through all the way but was reviewed and changed once the appeal went in.

overthehills

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

Are you a PWC also? Am just wondering if you are then whether your husband contributes to your children. You know, children that he has no biological attachment to?

Works both ways. Why should it just be the (usually) male PWCP's who do it?

My ex contributes and I have a very good business that we ALL benefit from. ALL, being those who live under our roof. When My husbands child was allowed, yes allowed, to spend time with us, I would buy things take her places. This came from MY pocket. So, I have infact contributed towards the upkeep of my husbands child as he contributes for mine. (it all going into one pot) .

Mrs_pbradley936

Kungfukitty wrote: »

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!

Well thank goodness for that. I have been following but not posting because I know nothing at all about this. Anyway I am pleased for you.

Loopy_Girl

Exactly - it's all one pot.

And out of this pot needs to be his maintenance contribution for his child(ren) with his ex.

So whether the CSA ask you for your income or not is irrelevant. The fact is that, for most couples, it's a 'one pot household' so I fail to see why it makes a difference whether an income gets asked for. If all the money is put together then what's the difference?

I would only see the point if it was his money and his money alone that paid for the maintenance and I understand a marriage is a partnership in all aspects including stuff like this. Which brings me back to my point of having choices in life and decide who you share your life with.

Just like he (and you) contribute to your child(rens) financial upbringing, why should you (and he) not contribute to his? And if the CSA ask for details under CSA1 then that's the way it's got to be. Clearly it was unfair and unwelcome else CSA2 wouldn't have been born.

Loopy_Girl

kelloggs36 wrote: »

She said it was CS2 but as I explained, it was probably based on the computer system of CS2 and not the actual case itself moving over as it involved housing costs which as you know, aren't relevant under CS2 type cases. This doesn't look like a case which went through all the way but was reviewed and changed once the appeal went in.

I see. Well unless the OP comes back to clarify we'll never know I suppose!

mumps

I'm still amazed that anyone would think £3 per child per week was appropriate. When there was all that fuss about 13 year old father I thought he would have to get a paper round and pay more than that. Personally I would find it hard to respect someone who wasn't prepared to do more than that for his kids.

overthehills

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

Exactly - it's all one pot.

And out of this pot needs to be his maintenance contribution for his child(ren) with his ex.

So whether the CSA ask you for your income or not is irrelevant. The fact is that, for most couples, it's a 'one pot household' so I fail to see why it makes a difference whether an income gets asked for. If all the money is put together then what's the difference?

I would only see the point if it was his money and his money alone that paid for the maintenance and I understand a marriage is a partnership in all aspects including stuff like this. Which brings me back to my point of having choices in life and decide who you share your life with.

Just like he (and you) contribute to your child(rens) financial upbringing, why should you (and he) not contribute to his? And if the CSA ask for details under CSA1 then that's the way it's got to be. Clearly it was unfair and unwelcome else CSA2 wouldn't have been born.

Because it's all one pot for those who live under our roof. The PWC is married and he will contribute to their pot. They don't contribute to ours.

kelloggs36

But it isn't for those who live under your roof - your partner has children and so he must contribute towards their upbrining.

Calvinandhobbs

kelloggs36 wrote: »

But it isn't for those who live under your roof - your partner has children and so he must contribute towards their upbrining.

C'mon Kellogs, you're missing the obvious point, children that don't live in your house don't require clothes or food, don't you know anything?