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

Kungfukitty

LizzieS wrote: »

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

I would agree with you if it wasn't for the fact that we have in our power to save the PWC £120 a week in child care which was repeatedly turned down. We would not have that cost as the father is able to pick up the kids from school everyday.

Anyway there are very, very good reasons for applying for custody, but this is not really the forum to discuss such issues.

Kungfukitty

Calvinandhobbs wrote: »

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

They are not my kids... Legally they are nothing to do with me. But I would like the CHOICE on what my personal contribution is. If you read all my posts you will understand that the kids have always been my first priority... all of them. I just don't believe that throwing MY money at the mother will benefit them in anyway, especially when it means I cannot even support my legal offspring who are definitely better off for they small amount I give them.

Calvinandhobbs wrote: »

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

She is welcome to complain about it, but unlike her, we would not expect the NRPP to contribute, nor would we want it!

Calvinandhobbs wrote: »

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

No I would expect more as she earns more than both our salaries put together. I agree £6 is a slap in the face, but CSA payments are means tested and that is all my partner can afford. And when he has better weeks he contributes more by buying clothes etc.

All academic now for us, but hopefully these posts will help others sort through this legal and moral quagmire

kelloggs36

She is welcome to complain about it, but unlike her, we would not expect the NRPP to contribute, nor would we want it!

I'm sure if you get a nil assessment you may feel differently.

Strapped

Kungfukitty wrote: »

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

Assuming these posts are genuine, TBH, in your shoes I would not bother to argue over 7 weeks' worth of payments (approx £14 pw difference x 7 = less than £100) plus the phasing in difference. Save yourself the stress!

I'm amazed to hear that you were actually transfered onto the new rules though - I have not heard of anyone else who has been moved unless a new claim started or the PWC closed and then later reopened the case. There's quite a queue of NRPs waiting to get moved onto CSA2!

Loopy_Girl

Indeed, I've been waiting 8 years to get moved to CSA2.:eek:

In fact, if memory serves me right, they STOPPED moving cases from CSA1 to CSA2 as the system couldn't cope with it and the apparant 'streamlined' new CSA2 wasn't running as smoothly as anticipated so it wasn't prudent to move more cases to it.

How very odd that this case got moved. Odd or untrue, one of them anyway!;) :A

kelloggs36

It is the computer system that is CS2 not the rules.

jacklink

so many replies to 'They are not my kids so why do I have to pay?' its always the case, someone will always jump down your neck for these kind of opinions

kelloggs36

Maybe a bit of understanding that a child is for life and not just when it's convenient might not go amis.

Loopy_Girl

jacklink wrote: »

so many replies to 'They are not my kids so why do I have to pay?' its always the case, someone will always jump down your neck for these kind of opinions

You could always PM her some moral support I suppose...since you are another one who would rather their partner hadn't had sex and conceived before they met you:D

overthehills

kelloggs36 wrote: »

Maybe a bit of understanding that a child is for life and not just when it's convenient might not go amis.

Or to be used as a financial weapon.