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

skibadee

Kungfukitty,
I am behind you 100%.
I have long argued the '' we don't take NRPP's income into account ''...No...they don't when doing assessment..but then they go onto other household income available.....this is where NRPPs income gets taken into account...also if there are non-dependents in the household part of their income would be taken into account.
It is a very unfair system.

I agree maintenance should be paid. But I do wish people would stop assuming all NRPs are NRPs by choice.....my Oh's ex had an affair and took his 3yr old son and 5 mth old daughter away to live with her new man.......is it any wonder some NRPs become bitter about assessments!!

kelloggs36

Whilst NRPs are not always by choice, being an NRPP is always a choice and they must accept that when they get together with the NRP. The reason that housing costs can be apportioned is to make it fairer - why should a child from the PWC have to have less because the NRP is paying full housing costs where an NRPP is working and actually making a financial contribution towards the household in which they live? OF course they would be paying towards the housing costs and so the NRP's contribution will be less.

pd001

Kungfukitty wrote: »

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.
.Kitty

They can indeed be asked to pay 100% of the total housing costs but I bet that it doesn't happen that often.

Soubrette

Kungfukitty wrote: »

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

I absolutely do not agree with this, both are criminally selfish and both should be punished severely.

Both access and financial support is detrimental to children when withheld - denying access can have obvious effects but can you imagine what it is like for a child to know that one of your parents is prepared to pay as little as possible for you whilst still spending lavishly on their own lifestyle? in general, most PWCs make many sacrifices for their children including time and emotional energy (and shame on those that don't), so it is not good enough to say that if they are financially sound then they should fork out for most of the costs of keeping the children too.

It's funny how few PWCP we have on here complaining about how they have to support their partners children isn't it?

Sou

skibadee

kelloggs36 wrote: »

Whilst NRPs are not always by choice, being an NRPP is always a choice and they must accept that when they get together with the NRP. The reason that housing costs can be apportioned is to make it fairer - why should a child from the PWC have to have less because the NRP is paying full housing costs where an NRPP is working and actually making a financial contribution towards the household in which they live? OF course they would be paying towards the housing costs and so the NRP's contribution will be less.

In which case why is it not fair for a PWCPs income to be taken into consideration too?

Soubrette

skibadee wrote: »

In which case why is it not fair for a PWCPs income to be taken into consideration too?

My partners income is certainly taken into account when any income related benefits such as child tax credits are applied for.

He also subsidises my children just by living with me and paying the bills. It would be hard not to unless all money was scrupulously kept separately and then split perhaps 1/3 each for the adults and 1/6 for each of the children.

On CSA2 as far as I have found in my experiences of it, the NRPP's income is not asked about at all. My ex has stated that she supports him to try and justify the pitiful amount he declares. IMO if he is willing to bring her income into the equation like this then it should be fair game - unfortunately that is not the case.

The OP is complaining about CSA1 and those rules have already changed.

Sou

kelloggs36

A PWCP automatically pays from living in the household as Sou has already said. Their income is already used - I shall tell you where it really isn't fair, and that is where the PWCP is suddenly deemed liable for university aged children!

skibadee

As far as I;m aware CSA1 rules have not changed in this area.

In an ideal world NRPs and PWCs would work these matters out amicably.....causing less stress to all involved...especially the children...which after all this is all about!!!

Soubrette

skibadee wrote: »

As far as I;m aware CSA1 rules have not changed in this area.

In an ideal world NRPs and PWCs would work these matters out amicably.....causing less stress to all involved...especially the children...which after all this is all about!!!

I'm sorry but I haven't made myself clear - CSA1 has changed to CSA2 where the NRPP income is not taken into account. Some people are still on CSA1 but will eventually be changed to CSA2 as it has been deemed that it is unfair to suddenly reduce the payments to the PWC.

The point being that someone somewhere with power had decided that it is unfair for the NRPP's income to be taken into account now.

As to your last point - if only, if only

Sou

skibadee

Well my OH's on CSA 1 and is still assessed on CSA1, he has been assessed under this since 1997...the only way that he can be assessed under CSA2 is if his ex had closed case and reopened it.