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

LizzieS_2

Kungfukitty wrote: »

The CSA do not make form filling very clear and often they mislead on purpose particularly on their appeals proceedure. They asked my partners for his housing costs so that is what he gave. He pays his half separately to mine as you would expect with flat mates with different tenancy agreements. He would have never thought it would have included mine as well... why would it?

Kitty

Are you saying that due to how he filled in the form, the csa are apportioning only 20% of what they think are the total costs but are actually only half, or you saying that overall you are paying 80% and him 20% irrespective of what the csa have done?

Just playing devils advocate here over the university. I can understand you wanting to support your own through university, but it is a double-edged sword, ie would you think it right for your husband to continue paying maintenance if his previous children went onto university (possibly direct to them)?

Kungfukitty

Hi Looktothefuture

Unfortunately my partner's ex is not really after the money. She just wants to put us under financial stress! She has even admitted to my partner that she doesn't need the money. My partner has offered to pick the kids up from school and look after them until she comes to collect, which would shave her £120 a week! But she refused of course!

Unfortunately the CSA don't care about her reasons, they are just willing pawns in her attack on us!

Kungfukitty

Thanks Kelloggs

but it doesn't mean that other children should have to go without because you had to (I have been there too, so I do know what it is like - i'm not looking through rose-tinted specs).

My kids never went without essentials... things they may have liked perhaps, but they were always fed, clothed, warm, loved and cared for. And I was living on the bread line. I would be happy to split the money 4 ways if they were on benefits, but they have everything they need at two houses, and the CSA want more than we have to give. At our house they have their own rooms (something my boy and girl never had until they were 12) with their own toys and clothes. When we got the house they stayed with us for half the week. It seems so empty now

The CSA was born to help PWC financially get support from absent fathers but what it actually does is promote bad parenting. In our case we went from 50/50 care to one night a week so she could get a higher assessment! There is more to bringing up children than the need for money. What about the love of a NRP for their kids and the benefits the kids get from having them around? Worth its weight in Gold IMHO

You say your case is CS2

We were on CS1 when the departure was made, but seven weeks after the departure assement was made we were moved to CS2. It seems such a waste of tax payers money to go through this appeal procedure for seven weeks of payments, and all the phasing that follows. I don't know why they don't just drop it. Surely resources would be better spent seeking out non-payers.

Kungfukitty

LizzieS wrote: »

Are you saying that due to how he filled in the form, the csa are apportioning only 20% of what they think are the total costs but are actually only half, or you saying that overall you are paying 80% and him 20% irrespective of what the csa have done?

Hi Lizzie

When there is no CSA involved I pay 50% and my partner would pay his 50%. But CSA want me to cover 80% of his 50% as well as 100% of my own committment! Which is much more than 80% of the combined costs. But then if our appeal fails it is also possible they could up it to 100%! If this happens I am well and truly stiched up by this cruel and unjust law. Time to get out of the country all together!

kelloggs36

The only time you can go onto CS2 is if your partner is linked to another case - that's why I said that it may be the computer system rather than the way it is calculated - why has it been moved to CS2?

I hope you didn't think that I thought your children went without - what I was saying was that whilst you had to struggle, it doesn't mean that others should have to. The ex might SAY that she doesn't need the money, but unless you live there, you don't know for sure what their circumstances are. Hers are still young children and therefore are in more need than your grown up children - and they need the support of both parents. The PWC and her partner are currently bearing the brunt of the costs even with a £20 per week contribution from your partner so it is fairer than you might wish to acknowledge.

SuziQ

I really sympathise with you on this. I went through it with my husband who has 2 children with his ex (that he has been denied access to for almpst 6 years.) I was forced to provide my income details. They didn't take into account my childcare costs from that-just used my gross income. Once they made their assessment they decided I could pay most of our housing costs (even though almost half of my income was being paid out in childcare across my 3 children) and the award made was so high that I actually gave up work-our youngest is special needs and I was ready to take some time off to help him before he started nursery but it was the push that made our minds up.Like you,his ex and her husband were on a much higher income than us and her new husbands income was not taken into account. They had doubled their mortgage in the assessment period which was included in the calculations,whilst the increased mortgage we took on to create an extra bedroom for the boys (that was one of the many reasons she used in court to stop access-them not having their own bedroom) was dissalowed even though we had been told when we inquired it would be allowed under the circumstances.

There doesn't seem to be any fareness in the CSA system. There are winners and losers but you can't always predict which side they will be on.

Of course the real losers are the kids-products of the broken relationships. And I am not critisising anyone here as I am divorced from my first husband and separated from my second pending divorce.(hangs head.)

LizzieS_2

Kungfukitty wrote: »

Hi Lizzie

When there is no CSA involved I pay 50% and my partner would pay his 50%. But CSA want me to cover 80% of his 50% as well as 100% of my own committment! Which is much more than 80% of the combined costs. But then if our appeal fails it is also possible they could up it to 100%! If this happens I am well and truly stiched up by this cruel and unjust law. Time to get out of the country all together!

In effect your partner is really being assessed to pay only 10% of the total housing, but they think that he has been assessed to 20%.

The csa usually work on set wages at a period around the assessment date. If your earnings were still 2/3 of income then, I cannot see how you would be worse off providing the information (Kellogs is best on that) for the appeal. If you choose not to, the appeal just fails and everything stays as it is. Only a new assessment could lead to a new decision over housing afaik.

Merry_Gentry

SuziQ wrote: »

Of course the real losers are the kids-products of the broken relationships. And I am not critisising anyone here as I am divorced from my first husband and separated from my second pending divorce.(hangs head.)

Don't feel you have to hang your head - I too am divorced, and separated from second husband. Not how I wanted my life to be, but life's like that! I have been the NRPP, and am now the PWC so have seen both sides.

TBH, as the NRPP I knew that I was 'inadvertently' paying towards his first child because with the money going to his first wife, I was paying that bit more. And of course, taking home less as we weren't entitled to benefits because of his salary. (Kinda felt like got bitten on both side - less benefits because of his salary, higher CSA payment so he couldn't give me money :rolleyes: )

He was only able to pay her the £27,500 settlement from the marital home because I bought into the place - otherwise he would have had to sell. (She moved out and went back to London, leaving him with the house). When the CSA did the assessment, they didn't actually ask for my details; he didn't ask for a reassessment based on my two children that I brought to the relationship and when we had our daughter together he didn't ask for a reassessment, even though I understand this might have made a difference.

Now, my case has been ongoing since August and I still have no assessment, and apparently the link to the previous case (and carp computer system) is a big part of why I have just gone clerical.

I guess what I'm saying is that sometimes you have to look at the bigger picture. You can choose to 'rage against the machine', against the rules that are in place, etc And I know that change can only come about when people do complain and protest. But if giving the CSA details of your income could make the difference between your assessment being unreasonable/unfair and something you can comfortably cope with, I personally would give the details.

The whole situation with the CSA sucks - having to share so much of your personal life, the breakdown of your relationship, how badly someone you used to love is now behaving in the case of those NRPs who won't/don't pay and those PWC's who use the children as a weapon.

You can battle this one and lose - based on what I understand from Kelloggs, you will lose, or you can make the best of it and maybe make your situation that bit easier. I know what I would choose.

JMHO.

catenorfolk

If the NRP claims he is paying for the full housing costs like mine was, then the reason for the csa asking for partners details are to see if he or she is able to contribute to half the housing costs. at no stage does the partner have to contribute to csa payments. In fact if they do give their details, the NRP will probably not have to pay the parent with care quite so much. why are many nrp so difficult in helping parents with care support their kids!!!! it is sooooo sad. I have taken the csa through the tribunal as they were not doing things things correctly. I won the case and now my ex has to pay me a decent amount and he has large arrears. and this is due to the fact that my ex would not give proper information and what info he did give was so full of lies. If he has given the proper information at the right time, he would not have had large arrears. Now the CSA are going to the courts to get arrears made a legal debt and my ex has got to clear this somehow. All the CSA are trying to do with asking for this information is to make sure that the NRP doesnt pay tooo much!!

Kungfukitty

at no stage does the partner have to contribute to csa payments

no but they can be asked to pay 100% of the total housing costs so the NRP can afford to pay more to the PWC. That is just a back door method of getting NRP partner's to support another person's children.

I agree that it is sad that so many NRPs avoid the CSA payments, but what is even sadder is when PWC uses their children, by withdrawing access, to gain higher payments.

In my case, before the CSA were involved, the NRP saw his kids 50% of the time and contributed far more in-kind than he could ever afford to do with cash. Using the kids in this way is even more criminal in my mind than avoiding maintenance as it harms the children more, particularly when the PWC is financially sound.

Kitty