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

kelloggs36

Kungfukitty wrote: »

Hi

My partner is a sole trader and is not making much money, despite being very good at his job, and hasn't done so for many years. When we got together my partner and his ex had an informal financial agreement in place . But after a silly falling out she withdrew access to the children (from 3-4 nights a week down to 1) and went to CSA.

The original assessment came out at £6.24 a week, (much less than the in-kind contribution we were making), but she applied for a departure from the rules order because I had refused to give my income details and she hopesd to get more money. The assessment came back at £20 a week, saying that I should contribute 80% to my partner's housing costs. I strongly objected and my partner put in an appeal.

Both my partner and I want to contribute to his kids upbringing, but we can't afford any more. I have two children, that I brought up single handedly, with no CSA payments. Now they are both at University I am still responsible for helping them out financially and to pay this extra to my partner will result in me having to withdraw my own kids financial support. The CSA does not recognise them as children as they are over 18.

We have been asked if we want to proceed with the appeal and I am in two minds as whether we should do so. We have been told by the appeals department that if I don't supply my details then they will assume that I am on a good salary and make a decision on this assumption. As I do not earn a high wage a decision going against us would cripple me. The thing is if I fight this, the only way I can do so is by proving I can't afford to contribute and consequently give them my income details. I still do not want to do this as what I earn has nothing to do with the CSA! I don't even have a legal obligation to support my partner.

I feel that the CSA are blackmailing me into supporting my partner further so he can support his children.

What makes matters worse is his children would not be financially better off. They have everything they need and more besides as their mother is on a very good salary (twice what my partner and I earn) and is getting married very soon to her partner who is also well paid. But what you are saying here is that it is okay for the PWC partner to pay but not you??? No different, only in the PWC partner case, it will automatically happen as the children will benefit from his income anyway in round about ways. That is to be expected though isn't it? So it is no different there. In some cases, it is only fair to accept that getting together with somebody who already has children with ex partners will have an impact on your finances whether directly or indirectly.
Does anyone know whether the CSA have been challenged on this? Can they really force me to support my partner when I have no legal responsibility to do so? Could I take them to court for emotional blackmail?

Should we continue with the appeal even though my refusal to co-operate will mean a punitive assessment against my partner if we lose?

I am in complete despair! Any advice would be grreatly appreciated

Kitty

.........................................

Kungfukitty

Hi LizzieS

My partner earned well below minimum wage last year and I brought in double what he did, but it still isnt much

Kellogs36

But what you are saying here is that it is okay for the PWC partner to pay but not you??? No different, only in the PWC partner case, it will automatically happen as the children will benefit from his income anyway in round about ways. That is to be expected though isn't it? So it is no different there. In some cases, it is only fair to accept that getting together with somebody who already has children with ex partners will have an impact on your finances whether directly or indirectly.

This is not what I am saying! His income has never come into the CSA's caluclations, only mine are being sought and I am told it doesn't matter how much the PWC earns either. Don't forget I was a single parent myself, had been for 17 years, but I never dreamt of asking my ex's partner to contribute to my kids. Its none of her business and I am sure she would agree with me. As does the law! Surely the law here is to protect the children to ensure they have everything they need and to take the burden off the state! This not the case here. She doesn't need my income. I need my income to bring up my own kids.

Moreover, in order for us to put a roof over our five children's heads, I needed to invest over twice what my partner did in our home in order for him to be able to afford his half of the mortgage. On top of this if my partner was still on his own he would be getting state assistance in the way of working tax credits and child tax credits. So I am already supporting my partner. The CSA are asking me to sacrifice my own children for the sake of his. I cannot allow this! I would go to prison first. But it won't be me being threatened by this as the debt is on my partner not me! Go figure!

I think I am going to have to fight this to the end... what the end will be I don't know

Thanks to everyone else for your support... it means a lot to me. At least I am not on my own. Would still like to sue the CSA for emotional blackmail, but wasn't there a recent test case that said the CSA have no duty of care! What a pile of ...

Kitty

DaisyFlower

Regardless of your partners ex's financial situtaion, he still has a duty to support his children. You knew he had children so paying child support is part and parcel of that.

Your own children are now adults and shouldnt need supporting financially, most students find part time work to top up their student loans and grants.

Working a job that barely brings in any money may need reviewing, perhaps then the household income will be enough to support both sets of children and not just your own.

Kungfukitty

Oh Gosh!!!

We are not trying to evade paying towards the children's upkeep! This has never been in question. We are paying regularly and have always done so, but it is the departures order that is so very wrong! Where it is the amount that we are being asked to pay that is being objected to and that 80% of this amount will have to come from my income. It is my partner's responsibility to pay, not mine. You seem to have ignored the fact that when we first got together that, for the first year we had them 50% of the time and were paying for them indirectly... much more in value to the mother than we do now. But this was freely given. It was my choice, but the CSA are taking this choice away from me, even though I do not have a legal obligation to support his children or my partner. It is criminal.

Both my children have part time jobs, but unfortunately that and their grant is not enough to keep them in food. Their accomodation alone takes up all their loan and grant. When their money is worked out there is no allowance made for the fact that we have other children to support because they don't live with us full time. Also the Grants people do not see students as independent and I am expected to contribute to their upkeep. So we get whacked from both the grants people, who refuse to recognise the step kids and the CSA who refuse to recognise my kids!

My "step kids" have everything they need, food in their belly, clothes on their backs and my kids have holes in their shoes and it breaks my heart that I have no more sacrifices to make to help them out any more.

What is more if my kids were working they would be happy to help us contribute to the family... all 7 of us.

So please don't make out that we are avoiding responsibilities. That is just not the case. I love my step kids dearly, but my priorities are with my own children for the time being. When they are not dependent on me things will be very different.

Working a job that barely brings in any money may need reviewing, perhaps then the household income will be enough to support both sets of children and not just your own.

This is a bit patronising don't you think? If making money was as easy as you suggest then we wouldn't be working two jobs each to make ends meet as it is!

Kitty

LizzieS_2

Kitty, as you have 2/3 of the income, the departure should be 67% rather than 80% by my reckoning. Just wait until Kellogs is online later as she is the expert on the first csa scheme which your partner is on.

highlandgurl

Hi Kitty, you are in a very unfair situation. I hope you do fight and good luck with this. It needs more people to stand up against the csa before anything will change but unfortunately most people cant afford the money or time needed for this. best of luck.

seven-day-weekend

I repeat, I do not see why the OP's salary should be counted towards the partner's children, especially if it means she cannot help out her own kids. I would not want to pay towards someone else's children.

I hope she wins her case.

kelloggs36

Kungfukitty wrote: »

Hi LizzieS

My partner earned well below minimum wage last year and I brought in double what he did, but it still isnt much

Kellogs36

This is not what I am saying! His income has never come into the CSA's caluclations, only mine are being sought and I am told it doesn't matter how much the PWC earns either Under CS1 the PWC income IS taken into account so you can make an application for a departure on the same grounds that she has your partner. The partner's details are used if they have a child together in the same way as yours is. Otherwise the info isn't needed. It is needed in your case to enable them to make an assessment which ensures that you do not fall below a certain threshold - the assessment won't rise but may reduce. However, in many cases it has no effect if the NRPP works and has no children.. Don't forget I was a single parent myself, had been for 17 years, but I never dreamt of asking my ex's partner to contribute to my kids. Its none of her business and I am sure she would agree with me. As does the law! But you expected your ex to pay, surely? No different to yoru case. Surely the law here is to protect the children to ensure they have everything they need and to take the burden off the state! This not the case here. She doesn't need my income. Irrelevant as it isn't your income that is being taken, but your partner's. You are being asked to contribute towards the house in which you live (which is totally fair) which frees up some of his money to support the children he had before you got together. Why should they not benefit from their father's income just because it will impact on your children who are adults? I need my income to bring up my own kids. Your children are no longer children and so your income is not needed to bring up your children - they have a father, don't they? Does he contribute towards their upkeep? If not, then perhaps you need to negotiate something with him that he can help them through uni.

Moreover, in order for us to put a roof over our five children's heads, I needed to invest over twice what my partner did in our home in order for him to be able to afford his half of the mortgage. On top of this if my partner was still on his own he would be getting state assistance in the way of working tax credits and child tax credits. So I am already supporting my partner. The CSA are asking me to sacrifice my own children for the sake of his. As I said, your children are non-dependent so you have no legal obligation to help support them. I cannot allow this! I would go to prison first. But it won't be me being threatened by this as the debt is on my partner not me! Go figure!

I think I am going to have to fight this to the end... what the end will be I don't know

Thanks to everyone else for your support... it means a lot to me. At least I am not on my own. Would still like to sue the CSA for emotional blackmail, but wasn't there a recent test case that said the CSA have no duty of care! What a pile of ...

Kitty

How far will the original £6 odd per week go towards the costs of bringing up your ex's children? Do you not think it morally right that you are expected to pay towards the house in which you live, and he pay a decent amount of child support?

pd001

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I repeat, I do not see why the OP's salary should be counted towards the partner's children, especially if it means she cannot help out her own kids. I would not want to pay towards someone else's children.

I hope she wins her case.

And as stated above..she is not legally obliged to give her financial information if she doesn't want to.
It's a personal decision

kelloggs36

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I repeat, I do not see why the OP's salary should be counted towards the partner's children, especially if it means she cannot help out her own kids. I would not want to pay towards someone else's children.

I hope she wins her case.

I'm afraid she won't. They will look at the figures and if she won't provide them the default will remain, or they will reduce the figure depending on how much she earns compared to her partner, but she will not win and get the departure overturned entirely, so it is only fair to make this clear from the outset.