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

Soubrette

overthehills wrote: »

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.

But the child is part of both families and unless you keep things like clothes scrupulously separate then the PWC in the main, buys the majority of these things and so 'saves' you money.

I mean you generally and not you specifically of course

Sou

LizzieS_2

Strapped wrote: »

How the heck did you get an appeal heard so fast...is this thread actually a wind-up?

I thought that a few nights ago when it became obvious there are 4 children one day and 5 another.

The tribunal may never have gone through - there was one post earlier where Kitty explained her partner had put 1/2 the housing costs down on the form instead of all. Guess the csa have accepted that mistake and recalculated, it looks like instead of increasing from £6 to £20 per week, it is now nil.

The custody comment surprised me somewhat:

1) There are clear indications of priority for 2 grown-up children with a budget that cannot afford to suppor them anyway.
2) If you cannot afford csa (as indicated by posts), court and solicitors costs are going to come in at more than £20pw even with some legal aid.

Personally I think this situation has dealt the pwc an ace over the custody motives.

overthehills

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.

Yes he does and yes he is. It is ME who has chosen not to contribute towards the child. My son also contributes to the pot. Is HE expected to contribute towards the child as well?
My husband chooses to support my children. They respect him, get on with him, infact love him. For reasons I am not going into my husbands daughter does not and has less feeling for me. (A wonderful emotion heavily assisted by her mother)Therefore I CHOOSE not to support her. It's about choices right? My children are my priority so making sure they are well looked after is mine.

overthehills

Soubrette wrote: »

But the child is part of both families and unless you keep things like clothes scrupulously separate then the PWC in the main, buys the majority of these things and so 'saves' you money.

I mean you generally and not you specifically of course

Sou

The child is no longer part of our family because she is not allowed to be. This however hasn't stopped her father contributing for her upbringing. At one time she stayed over half the week. Husband still had to pay child support. Ex had the benefits and his CSA contributions. We had nothing. I bought hubs child clothes and filled a wardrobe because whenever she came here, she wore clothes too small, dirty, falling apart. (All from a woman who shops in M&S and who worked to so was able to sustain a very nice lifestyle, and who seemingly loved her child.) Because it became apparant to the mother the child actually LIKED being with us, the visitation went from 3 nights to 1 and even on that 1 the visit was dictated. That 1 day soon went to nothing. It is hard enough to support a child, to want to be involved in their life. God knows there are people out there who do neither, but as I say, my husband supports his child and as i am the main wage earner now, I chose not to.

kelloggs36

As long as your partner is paying what he should be then yes, you choose to do what you like with your money - it is when NRP pays less due to their new responsibilities that it riles so many PWCs - their children are then classed as second rate whereas the new children (including step children) are prioritised when it should be the other way round as the PWC children were more often than not there first and must remain the priority of the NRP - not be pushed down the pecking order because it has become difficult - have children expect to have to pay for them until they are adults (and that does not include university!!)

MrsE_2

Silaqui wrote: »

Hi Kitty,
I have no children or experience of this so not really in a position to answer any of you questions but I am sure there will be others along who have more understanding of how this all works.
It sounds completely unfair though, especially if you have your own children to support through uni - funny how they count as your children for the university fees/loans that you would have had to pay but not in this case .
Hope you manage to get things sorted out.
xx

Its really odd that, got all the aces covered haven't they:rolleyes:

Well I'm all for accessing parents without custody, I don't think its right that any future girlfriends are liable for the children

overthehills

kelloggs36 wrote: »

As long as your partner is paying what he should be then yes, you choose to do what you like with your money - it is when NRP pays less due to their new responsibilities that it riles so many PWCs - their children are then classed as second rate whereas the new children (including step children) are prioritised when it should be the other way round as the PWC children were more often than not there first and must remain the priority of the NRP - not be pushed down the pecking order because it has become difficult - have children expect to have to pay for them until they are adults (and that does not include university!!)

You up early like me K?
I am also a PWC and have been/am on the other side of the fence too. I've experienced it from both sides.
My intention is not to offend. I simply have a different story to many here. Most, not receiving anything from the NRP. As a family, we have had to deal with hardship (financial) because an ex keeps asking for re assessments. My husband has brown envelopes land on his mat, mostly on a Friday so has the whole weekend to think about it, about every 6 months. We cannot fart, without the ex wanting us re assessed. I came into some money. Me, not hubbs, so we bought a car. Guess what?
Hubs daughter was always involved and treated equally to my children. No, I lie, she was treated differently. Got more things because of guilt. My kids have stood on the side lines for a long time, making do because hubs daughter got everything. Now I am the main wage earner, I chose how to distribute the finances. We are unable to have access to hubs child to the point her name is now changed. But hubs money is still good enough isn't it? I know it's not the point, but we've had the last 10 years of a woman dictating our finances, now she can't and we can actually start being a family and treating each other.

kelloggs36

I have to leave for work at 8am!!! Always have a quick look before I go!

I do understand what you are saying - as he is still working he is still making the relevant payments to the ex and that is all you can do. What I can't abide, is those who bleat about having to pay because they have a new family now and they can't afford both, so it is the 'old' children who have to now go without!

Kungfukitty

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

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:

Somebody did!

The appeal went in months ago, before I made the first post and had already been passed to the Tribunal. The decision was over whether to give in and supply my details... which in the end I didn't.

To be honest I never thought we had a chance either!!

Kungfukitty

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

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....

Yes indeed, the appeal only covered 7 weeks on old rules. The case was transferred to new rules after the appeal had gone in (as everyone on old rules will move to new rules eventually) and was backdated a few months too. But this still left us in a situation where we would need to phase in to our new payments which is why we continued with the appeal. We are much happier with the new payment and is much fairer as it is based on my partner's income alone.

To be honest the appeal wasn't won because of our argument so it is no wonder people on here are in disbelief we could have won. And the time frame... this battle has now been going on for over a year.

I acutally have found this forum a great support. It was the advice given, which we acted on, that gave the ammunition to win this case.

And yes this will be appealed by the PWC... we know this because the CSA sent the appeal papers to her at OUR address! Can the CSA do anything right???

So no, the battle is not over