csa and redundancy

Blob

To true, so the children should not be used as a weapon by either side, stop contact no money and prison, stop paying the same, works for me, and kids dont suffer. Only people to suffer are the idots that cause the probs in the first place.

Oh Yes, if the CSA make a mess of it then they personally are held accountable, both profesionally and financially.

Sounds fair to me

hope6804

I think it's a great shame as a PWC when I met my partner my ex stopped paying prompting CSA - didn't responsd to them them had it taken from his wages. He then changed jobs but did set up SO to CSA. Eldest child decided to go and live with his dad and then he stopped paying again. I have always kept the contact even adding more as requested along the way - bending over backwards and generally being a doormat for the sake of the kids - but what gets me is what someone said before -

A real man pays for his children no matter what - there are lots of decent PWC out there and actually use the money for our children - schooluiniform, school dinners and bus fair account for my CSA payments!:think:

AnxiousMum

Blob wrote: »

Yes it should be, as well as result in the stopping of all CSA payments untill contact is restored. This is were the CSA is used as a weapon by PWC to extract the most from their ex's both emonitionally as well as financially! It is revenge pure and simple!

Blob - you misunderstood me - payment of child support and visitation should NOT be related. However, just as the CSA is there to supposedly enforce child support payments, there should be some recourse for the NCP to go to to ensure they can maintain as normal as possible relationship with their children.
Custodial parents who use 'contact' in order to get child support - what's their real goal? Certainly not for the benefit of the children.
The two issues are entirely different, yet both as important as the other - in fact, the contact is probably more important.

woody01

A real man pays for his children no matter what

100% agree.

What makes me want to vomit though is all the posts here that from the ex-wives mostly, that they call it THEIR money as opposed to the childs.

The CSA payer always ends up fronting the bill for their ex-wife/husband.

They should support themselves. Why should an ex support their new lifestyle?

I also think that any NRP, if paying maintenance/csa, should be AUTOMATICALLY given rights by law to see their children.
If they aren't the resident parent should be fined heavily.

Soubrette

woody01 wrote: »

100% agree.

What makes me want to vomit though is all the posts here that from the ex-wives mostly, that they call it THEIR money as opposed to the childs.

The CSA payer always ends up fronting the bill for their ex-wife/husband.

They should support themselves. Why should an ex support their new lifestyle?

I also think that any NRP, if paying maintenance/csa, should be AUTOMATICALLY given rights by law to see their children.
If they aren't the resident parent should be fined heavily.

If a PWC is not spending one penny on their child then that is child abuse - the NRP is perfectly within their rights to go the Social Services and report them.

Further, if I were that NRP then I would be going through the court system myself for custody.

If however the PWC is spending money on the children then it is likely the children live a similar lifestyle to the PWC. An increased household income almost invariable leads to a better lifestyle for all occupants of the household.

Being an NRP has disadvantages: most do not see their children as often as they would like to, they have to pay the majority of maintenance for their children. (I always find it a weird anomoly that nights spent at the NRP is paid for by a reduction in maintenance - it always seems to me that it should be paid for with a maintenance payment by the PWC but maybe that's semantics). They have no say in how that money is spent.

However, being an NRP has advantages, most can pursue a career without having to take time of for sick children or cover childcare issues etc, most are not liable for further costs to the children once maintenance has been sorted, most NRPs find it much easier to find another partner if they do not have children living with them full time.

Being a PWC has advantages: They get to see their children most of the time, make decisions about those children and spend maintenance money as they see fit.

Being a PWC has disadvantages: There is very little 'me' time, especially for single parents and very difficult for their partners sometimes, they do not have the luxury of saying 'I'm too busy to see you this week, no you can't visit me in the week' etc etc, it is much harder to be taken seriously at work a) if you choose to work part time and b) if you take time off for children's illnesses etc.

In short having a PWC allows an NRP the benefits of having much more time and less responsibilities to do with what they see fit. In return having an NRP paying maintenance allows a PWC the benefit of having more household income and the responsibility of spending that as they see fit.

It seems a shame that often one side or the other cannot see that both NRP and PWC are making sacrifices that both NRP and PWC are benefiting from.

Sou

edited for spelling

woody01

allows a PWC the benefit of having more household income and the responsibility of spending that as they see fit.

Please dont take offence but your post smacks of ' im hard done by and want as much as possible'.

Which is precisely the problem. Why should an NRP have a responsibility to give any kind of support to their ex-partner financially.
I think many here look at the PWC as a lonely single mother on the bread line (which is often the case), but certainly NOT everytime by a LONG shot!. If that is the case, then alot of the time, the child may be better off with the other parent anyway.

Say you pay £200 per month to a PWC.
£140 per month is used for the child for food/clothes/fuel/etc.
The PWC then pockets the remaining £60 and can spend it how they wish....This is wrong.

I also bet it happens in a hell of alot of cases aswell.
Nobody is disputing that the child needs financial support but if i was an NRP, i would rather stop working than support an ex-partner.

(Before anyone picks holes in the numbers, there are off the cuff and not a representation. Just an example).

payment of child support and visitation should NOT be related

Yes they should.
If i had a child i looked after 3 days/nights a week, i should obviously pay less as i woul be accepting a large percentage of the financial responsibility during that time

Soubrette

woody01 wrote: »

Which is precisely the problem. Why should an NRP have a responsibility to give any kind of support to their ex-partner financially.
I think many here look at the PWC as a lonely single mother on the bread line (which is often the case), but certainly NOT everytime by a LONG shot!. If that is the case, then alot of the time, the child may be better off with the other parent anyway.

Say you pay £200 per month to a PWC.
£140 per month is used for the child for food/clothes/fuel/etc.
The PWC then pockets the remaining £60 and can spend it how they wish....This is wrong.

I also bet it happens in a hell of alot of cases aswell.
Nobody is disputing that the child needs financial support but if i was an NRP, i would rather stop working than support an ex-partner.

(Before anyone picks holes in the numbers, there are off the cuff and not a representation. Just an example).

Why shouldn't a NRP then take responsibility for half the time spent by the PWC - if you only want to pay for half the cost of the child then you should take responsibility for half the time.

So if you have three children and they come down with chickenpox one after another (this happened to a single mum who is a friend of mine) you both take 3 weeks off work to cover the illnesses.

Likewise the school phones because your child feels sick, the PWC dealt with it last time, now it's your turn to explain to work why you're leaving early and you're not sure if you'll be back tomorrow. You also have to let them know that no, you won't be able to do any overtime as you have family commitments and you can bet your bottom dollar that when that promotion comes up - you're probably not committed enough to the company to get it.

Of course you have school holidays to cover too - that'll be 6.5 weeks every year of trying to arrange childcare.

But maybe both the NRP and PWC work full time - so your child gets to go to both empty houses, make their own meals and look forward to one or other of their parents getting on about 6pm and perhaps leaving at 8am in the morning, then the parents wonder why said child goes out all day with their friends and doesn't really care to put their parents as a high priority in life as they sure as hell aren't in either of their lives

Or look at your other argument - PWC works part time and earns £600 a month and NRP works full time and earns £1200 a month - the kid should be better off with the higher earner right? Hmmm hang on a minute, now the former NRP has the child and realises that actually looking after a kid is a job in itself - their hours go down. The former PWC however had just been promoted because now they show a commitment to the job that they did not have before - do we swap again? After all the former PWC now earns more than the former NRP - because having children in themselves lead to choices that almost invariable lead to a lower income.

In general a PWC sacrifices time (and career potential) and a NRP sacrifices money (and relationship with the children potential) - the PWC doesn't get to say what the NRP does with his time and the NRP doesn't get to say what the PWC does with the money.

BTW I certainly don't take offence at what you assume my problem to be - I am trying to put to you both sides of an equation and it says a lot to me that you are the sort of person who only sees one. People like you are why the CSA exists unfortunately

Sou

Soubrette

As an aside - I don't want to give the impression that the PWC pays no money towards the children as this would be a very rare and dangerous case but in general PWCs earn less than NRP and so I would expect the NRP to put a higher amount than the PWC - speaking generally of course

Sou

Soubrette

woody01 wrote: »

Nobody is disputing that the child needs financial support but if i was an NRP, i would rather stop working than support an ex-partner.

I also wanted to pick up on this - how do you decide what is financially supporting the child and what is supporting the ex-partner?

For example - for some children it would mean a lot to have their own rooms - so a PWC with two children spends some maintenance for a bigger mortgage on a 3 bed house.

Through-out their childhood the children have the benefit of their own space.

When the children have gone, the PWC has the benefit of a potential capital gain on the house (of course she may have made a capital loss too!!)

Are you the sort of NRP who would rather see his children have a more impoverished life than see the PWC potentially benefit at all?

Here's another example - the maintenance allows the PWC to take the kids on a two week holiday to Cornwall, of course she benefits too as she goes along also. Is that the sort of thing you'd be really annoyed about her spending 'your' money on?

The maintenance allows the PWC to up a grade from value food to own brand food which she feels is healthier - should she stick with the value food and in effect have two shopping lists?

The examples could go on

Sou

hamstercheeks_2

i have to agree with woody tbh

what sort of PWC gets a huge lump sum yet lives in a slum (albeit gets more than £1500 a month on benny fits) and gets a lot of child support from the ex?