Maintenance and contact not linked

Found_true_love

I would like to start a discussion to see other peoples opinion.

I am confused, let me explain:

The powers that be state that money for maintenance and contact with your children are not, and cannot be linked when arguing for either one in a CSA application and the other for a contact order.

This as it stands sounds sensible and reasonable

However;

If that is the case then how come if you (as a NRP) have overnight staying contact for more than 54 days a year you can claim a reduction in your maintenance payments by 1/7th.

EH, I thought they weren't linked

It is said that 90% of all couples separate and dont have to resort to court or CSA to settle thier differences.

This leaves 10% and of that 10% they range in awkwardness from a scale of 1 - 10. 10 being the worse ie wont let the NRP have any contact or are as awkward as possible.

Now I know that they are the instances where the childs welfare is REALLY at risk (and not just saying it is to get a result) and I am not talking about these situations.

However given that most cases revolve around the subject of money anyway and I suggest that the PWC resists (overnight staying) contact because if they allow contact thier money would go down

Thus the "system" sets up a confruntational system from the word go and its a closed loop because once in the system you cant say hey "I know you want more money and then you will let me see my child more and I am happy (or not) to come to an agreement"

However the opposite happens, the PWC resists bitterly any further (overnight) contact for fear of losing money (the 1/7th bit)

Is it me or is the system a bit screwey and the law made by people who do not live in the real world or who have got thier collective thumbs stuck in an unsuitable place?

What is your opinion

BTW I do have very strong opinions about this subject given they way the system has treated me but I have learnt that with knowledge games can be thwarted and table turned, but and it is a BIG but.......

Everybody seems to have forgotten that the real issue is the child or children and who speaks for them when the spectre of MONEY is influincing real decisions?

Hope it sparks some intereast and to all those who have lost hope dont give up, you can get to see your child if you really want, you just have to play the system and not let it play you

:beer:

tigstheterror

Good post what also annoys is when the pwc won't make an amicable agreement at all and decides they can have more money if they make a claim through the CSA, especially if it is between " private " parties, i.e both working, this then has a detrimental effect on the NRP's income , and more so if either parent has moved on and away, because of the depletion in income how is the NRP supposed to fund travelling to have contact? most PWC see it as the oleness falls to the NRP to fund this if he wishes contact, yet the PWC is in receipt of the CM, it's a viscious circle because it is then cited that the CM is for the upkeep of the child/ren and why should she help in the travel costs to up keep contact? Surely though this poses an argument that contact with the absent parent would be beneficial to avoid further upset to the child/ren and to prevent parental alienation syndrome?!!
You are right in what you say and unfortunately, as you have pointed out, because of their 1/7th off CM if you have overnight contact, invariably some PWC have ceased this as soon as they have had the money taken from the regular CM,and if the NRP has protested then contact has ceased altogether! but what of the child/ren? how does anyone, either NRP or PWC explain that to them? I see it as the PWC makes the child/ren as a pay per view option and doesn't care or see how it affects the child/ren or how it makes them feel.
We can safely say that anythnig this government has to do with family matters just doesn't work!!
Tigs

koolmummy

When you say that the "powers that be" say that maintenance and contact are not linked, I guess you mean the courts regarding contact proceedings.It is clear that with the CSA the two matters are linked.

If as a NRP, you tell the courts in statements and evidence etc, that you are a loving and caring parent that has always paid child support, this would be see as a positive.

If I on the other hand, as a PWC, were to tell the courts that my ex, despite earning in excess of £100,00 per annum, has always refused to assist in the financial upkeep of his children then that would be viewed badly by the courts, the courts would consider that I was in the wrong for mentioning it.

I think that an NRP who willfully refuses to contribute towards their children, when they are in a position to do so is irresponsible and negligent.

My ex does not have overnight staying contact because he doesn't want it. In fact he has never had a problem maintaining contact with his children, he call ring/see them whenever he likes. That didn't stop him from using the courts as another form of oppression against me. Thankfully the courts have now seen this to be the case and he would struggle to make further applications. He barley see his children now as he can't be bothered.It is the children that suffer in these situations.

I do understand your point and appreciate that many PWC's attempt to minimize contact in order to maximize CSA payments. It's a far from perfect system.

I guess in an ideal world we wouldn't need the courts and the CSA as things would be agreed amicably by rational and reasonable adults, in some cases sadly this just isn't possible.

kelloggs36

By the powers that be it means that legally on both sides, CSA and courts dealing with contact cannot use contact as a means to reducing liability EXCEPT for the shared care - which can be abused of course - on both sides!!

I would like to see the courts try and force a parent to have contact with their children!! Difficult I know, but it may make some parents think twice!

Found_true_love

tigstheterror wrote: »

Good post what also annoys is when the pwc won't make an amicable agreement at all and decides they can have more money if they make a claim through the CSA, especially if it is between " private " parties, i.e both working, this then has a detrimental effect on the NRP's income , and more so if either parent has moved on and away, because of the depletion in income how is the NRP supposed to fund travelling to have contact?

We can safely say that anythnig this government has to do with family matters just doesn't work!!
Tigs

Hi Tig

This is also a very stange anomolie, the NRP can ask for a variation in maintenance (reduction) based on cost associated with seeing your child. NB the first £15 (per week I think) is disregarded

However I believe that those costs are only considered if it is cost incurred for collecting your child due to daytime contact and is returned on the same day. As soon as you collect your child for overnight contact no traveling costs are allowed.

There seems to be no allowance for "sharing" this cost associated with the child(ren) for the NRP and it staggers me that the PWC sits in his/her ivory tower expecting the NRP to do all the fetching and carrying.

The attitude seems to be " if you want to see your child(red) then you pick them up and drop them off"

koolmummy

You either get a reduction due to overnight staying contact i.e 1/7th for 53+ nights

or

you can ask for a reduction due to the costs associated with contact, like if the PWC has moved 100 miles away and you are paying for the petrol costs etc.

I don't think £15 is disregarded for contact costs, It's calculated on mileage, Kellogs will know more.

Found_true_love

kelloggs36 wrote: »

By the powers that be it means that legally on both sides, CSA and courts dealing with contact cannot use contact as a means to reducing liability EXCEPT for the shared care - which can be abused of course - on both sides!!

I would like to see the courts try and force a parent to have contact with their children!! Difficult I know, but it may make some parents think twice!

Absolutely

By my way of thinking why dont we have a simple system (I think the Australian system is similar)

Basic assumption is that both parents automatically get 50/50 shared care. This presumes that both parents provide equally for the child(ren)

If one of the parents gives up the right to have the child(ren) equally they have to pay thier former spouse 1/7th (of a previously worked out figure based on any formula you want CSA2 perhaps) to compensate the parent for the extra cost involved with the care.

Thus the person who doesn't want to see thier child(ren) at all defaults to fully payable maintenance to the (now PWC) they would also give up the right to shared residence and shared care, this break off point could come if the overnight contact reduces (by choice) to one overnight staying contact per fournight.

There would be complications I know but hey its just an idea

koolmummy

Found_true_love wrote: »

Basic assumption is that both parents automatically get 50/50 shared care. This presumes that both parents provide equally for the child(ren)

If one of the parents gives up the right to have the child(ren) equally they have to pay thier former spouse 1/7th (of a previously worked out figure based on any formula you want CSA2 perhaps) to compensate the parent for the extra cost involved with the care.

Thus the person who doesn't want to see thier child(ren) at all defaults to fully payable maintenance to the (now PWC) they would also give up the right to shared residence and shared care, this break off point could come if the overnight contact reduces (by choice) to one overnight staying contact per fournight.

/quote]

Sounds like an excellent solution to me. I do think the family courts are heading towards 50/50 care, albeit slowly. I'm a McKenzie friend for a few dad's and shared residence orders are certainly more commonplace than they were say 5 years ago.

tigstheterror

Under CSA2 they don't take any travelling to see the children into account, thats what we have been told on numerous occassins, contact and maintenance are seperate, and what of the PWC who decides that she doesn't want you having the 1/7th off each overnight because she has a drop in her maintenance because of it and the contact ceases??
Under CMEC all of the above are ignored, and where is it set in stone that the father should do all of the travelling anyway? This has always been a bone of contention with me, whether a split is amicable or acrimonious, surely it should be what is best for the children to minimise the break in the first place and stopping contact is never going to be the best solution for the children is it?
Again why should the children become a pay per view???
Tigs x

tigstheterror

First sentence above is purely information we have been told by CSA staff,not what we know because we know how it SHOULD be!
Tigs x

koolmummy

tigstheterror wrote: »

Under CSA2 they don't take any travelling to see the children into account,

Not so Tigs, you have been misinformed. What a surprise!

If you do not have a reduction due to O/S contact, then you can apply for a variation if you have high traveling costs for contact. You cannot have both discounts.

My husband has been through 5 years of acrimonious litigation concerning contact issues, it took him nearly 2 years to have O/S contact ordered. As his ex had moved 100 miles away, he had his CSA assessment downwardly varied to factor in his fuel costs. I think it was about £8 per week. He is on CSA 2.

Now he has O/S 104+ days he receives the relevant reduction but not traveling costs in addition. He now has a S.R.O and all of the contact that his shift pattern allows at least when orders are complied with!