CSA payment for my children?

Missy_me_3

No I am not fully able to look after the children alone. I am blessed that my sibling has given up work and is helping me. I would be happier not to talk about my illness, please dont be offended. I get good days and bad and do everything I possibly can for my kids. I am definately unable to work now and for the forseeable future. I have worked all my adult life, as has my sibling whom has suprisingly found himself as an unpaid carer. I would love to be able to work and will do all I can to fight this illness.

seven-day-weekend

As I see it, the the children are nothing to do with the ex's aprtner, she has not chosen to live with someone with children, so why should she have to pay?

If the OP was to have a new partner in their life,and her children were living with her, then that would be a choice on both sides.

Having said that, I hope the OP's ex is made to pay his due contribution.

mitchaa

Soubrette wrote: »

Missy_me personally I would ignore mitchaa - despite lots of evidence to the contrary he persists in his views that fathers who don't want to pay should be let off the hook and all mothers are in it to rip off their ex partners as much as possible.

I deliberately use the terms father and mothers as he comes across to me as utterly sexist too.

Good luck with your attempts to get justice for your children but please be remember that your health is important too.

Sou

I missed my post where i personally attacked and insulted you. Why feel the need to do it to me

So you disagree with my point that a partner of an NRP shouldn't be held financially responsible for a child that they do not know:rolleyes:

Fathers (Well NRP's) should pay for their children but only if they can personally afford to live and pay their own bills as everyone has the right to an existance. Absolutely nothing wrong with that view in the slightest.

kelloggs36

I believe that both parents should pay for their children and consider the child's needs BEFORE their own, ie pay something regardless of their circumstances afterall it is the children who are totally innocent in all this and should not suffer in any way. Parents should factor in the costs of the children BEFORE they rent etc a new place to ensure that the children are paid for.

kelloggs36

if he is on JSA he will pay a flat rate of either £5 or £7 per week from his benefits.

kelloggs36

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

As I see it, the the children are nothing to do with the ex's aprtner, she has not chosen to live with someone with children, so why should she have to pay? She has indeed chosen to live with someone who has children!!! Just because they don't live with him doesn't mean he doesn't have them or have to pay for them (I acknowledge you say that later on!!!) A PWCP doesn't really have that choice in the same way well they do, either take on the 'burden' of another person's children or don't - it cuts both ways really.

If the OP was to have a new partner in their life,and her children were living with her, then that would be a choice on both sides. It is a choice to accept that the NRP has children who must be paid for by the NRP - which may impact on their own lifestyles due to less money in the household.

Having said that, I hope the OP's ex is made to pay his due contribution.

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

seven-day-weekend

I meant she has not chosen to live with his children, they are nothing to do with her. Of course the ex should pay his contribution towards his children, I just don't see why his partner should.

Merry_Gentry

But surely by accepting him, she accepts his children? Sort of a packaged deal, even if they don't live with him all the time. I agree, the income of his new partner should have no bearing on the CSA arrangement - it is his responsibility to pay for his children, but isn't it the same for the NRPP as it is for the PWCP? You take them on, you take on their offspring.

mitchaa

kelloggs36 wrote: »

I believe that both parents should pay for their children and consider the child's needs BEFORE their own, ie pay something regardless of their circumstances afterall it is the children who are totally innocent in all this and should not suffer in any way. Parents should factor in the costs of the children BEFORE they rent etc a new place to ensure that the children are paid for.

But in many cases this could potentially leave the NRP homeless?

The PWC would be put to the top of the council/social housing list due to the circumstances of homelessness and having children. A single NRP wouldn't have a hope in hell (EVER)

Additionally the PWC would receive all child related benefit.

So comparing the NRP and PWC housing needs and finances is biased straight away here. The NRP needs a roof over his/her head 1st in my books.

I have used NRP and PWC rather than male and female here so im not playing the sexist card even though we both know fine well that 90%+ of the time the NRP is likely to be male.

NRP's need protection and they need the basic essentials that everyone in this country is entitled too, i dont know how anyone can argue with this

I honestly dont know how you can counter argue against the above?

kelloggs36

A PWC living in a mortgaged property would not be re-housed if they left voluntarily and if they own half the house that is what it would be classed as so they would be homeless if they didn't stay. It is easier for the NRP to find a bedsit or something similar than another parent with children - an NRP is now single and should be able to live on what is left after paying child support. Even a room in a house, whilst not ideal would not render them unable to pay towards their children.

You seem rather ignorant to the full facts - many PWCs get no help at all due to their incomes being too high to qualify for any assistance but in reality they don't have much money due to having to pay out childcare costs and all related child costs and all housing costs etc. If they live in a mortgaged house they have to pay the mortgage as they won't get any help from the LA and if the NRP pays nothing then they may end up much worse off than the NRP as they have to pay the full mortgage plus all other costs on top. The NRP only has their own roof to consider which will cost much less than that where the child is living. Of course if it is social housing then this is different as the PWC will indeed qualify for help with rent if the income is low enough, but you cannot assume that this is true in every case.

Nobody is saying that the NRP does not need the basic essentials, but as a single person it is MUCH easier to downsize and cut cloth to your means than it is as a parent. Ideal no, but necessary sometimes, yes. Having a child is for life, not for when a person can claim to afford it - children come first all the time - parents must make sacrifices for them.