he keeps threatening csa

Soubrette

mitchaa wrote: »

Interesting post there Sou, you sound like you gave your ex numerous chances to sort out proper maintenance and i agree in your case it was best to go through CSA. Have to give you a big wow though, you take moneysaving to the extreme and if it means going to Canada once or twice a year as a result then good on you.

Thanks Mitchaa - we also cut back so the girls don't feel that they are paupers compared to everyone else, they have much nicer phones that mine for example

I also want to make it clear that I'm not complaining about my lifestyle - I do not mind doing those things and making our income work hard. I would have no problems if the ex said that we pay now and he'll pay through university (he has said he will charge them if they stay with him whilst they are university :rolleyes:). In fact if we do get what the girls are entitled to via the CSA then most of it will be going to help them through university.

Also I would not have known about half those money saving things without this website and the support of the lovely people on here :j

I feel we have a reasonable lifestyle on a shoestring budget

Sou

Soubrette

ladylumps45 wrote: »

hi sou!
no worries! thanks for the reply.sorry for being thick but i dont understand the deduction part .him having her 6 nights a month -how is that deducted from the 15% ?he has no other children and none living with him of his wifes either. thankyou.

So if he has her for 6 nights a month only then he has her for 72 nights a year (6x12), 1 night a week would be 54 nights and 2 nights a week would be 108 nights a week - as he comes roughly in the middle then it is rounded down to the 1 night.

The 15% is divided into sevenths for convenience so if you have her 6 nights and he has her 1 night then it assumed that he has expenses to pay for her too - he therefore gets to keep 1/7 of what he would have paid and you get to keep 6/7.

So to keep it easy If the CSA say that he should be paying £49 per week then you would get £42 (or 6/7ths) and he would keep £7 (or 1/7th) as he is supposed to be paying for her needs on that one night.

Although using nights instead of days is a bit counterintuitive as after all children probably cost less at night, I think it's because days can be spent switching between parents whereas once a child is settled for the night it is rare that they move to the other parent.

I hope that makes sense

Sou

mitchaa

ladylumps45 wrote: »

hi sou!
no worries! thanks for the reply.sorry for being thick but i dont understand the deduction part .him having her 6 nights a month -how is that deducted from the 15% ?he has no other children and none living with him of his wifes either. thankyou.

A NRP will be assessed at 15% net income for 1 child.

However a NRP can be awarded disounts on this 15% if they were to share the responsibility of looking after the child OR they have other children within their care.

If your ex has your child 52days or more (overnight stays) he automatically qualifies for a 1/7 deduction as he is obviously prime carer for 1/7 of the year. The same would go for 104 days or more, he would be awarded a 2/7 discount, 156 days or more 3/7 discount and so on and on.

So 15% minus 1/7 = 2.14% discount = 12.86% of his net income

edit..Too late Sou beat me to it.

ladylumps45

wow you are just toooooo good mitchaa!!:D:Tthankyou and thanks to sou also for your help.
like you say its a tough decision and il think about it.i get fed up with him throwing the csa thing at me all the time and sometimes i think that at least if it was assessed by them it will shut him up!!whats the csa 1 thing then? hows 1 and 2 different?

mitchaa

CSA1 is for old claims (I believe pre 2005) It took into account NRP housing costs, and a few other things.

New claims will all be assessed on CSA2 which is the 15% net income thing.

Soubrette

ladylumps45 wrote: »

wow you are just toooooo good mitchaa!!:D:Tthankyou and thanks to sou also for your help.
like you say its a tough decision and il think about it.i get fed up with him throwing the csa thing at me all the time and sometimes i think that at least if it was assessed by them it will shut him up!!whats the csa 1 thing then? hows 1 and 2 different?

You're welcome

Don't ask about CSA3

Coming soon to a cinema near you :rotfl:

Sou

ladylumps45

oh no not CSA3! no,dont worry i wont ask on that one lol

Loopy_Girl

mitchaa wrote: »

CSA1 is for old claims (I believe pre 2005) It took into account NRP housing costs, and a few other things.

CSA2 came onto force in 2003. Cases prior to that are calculated under the old rules CSA1

Loopy_Girl

mitchaa wrote: »

As to electricity costs, fridge and freezer etc would be on 24/7 regardless if you had children or not. Gas central heating/cooking would be pretty similar. I.e you can pop 2 pizzas in the oven and you will use the same amount of gas. You would have the heating on if it was cold regardless if you had children or not.

But the fuel costs are higher when you have children. And this is quantified by the energy companies asking you how many adults and children you have in the house when you start with a new energy company. So there must be something in the fact that more peole equate to more energy or the companies wouldn't ask. So therefore, yes, having children in the house does mean that you are using more fuel than if you were on your own.

Maybe the child has a condition that needs heating on constant (or certainly alot), maybe they have a disability that means they needs more baths a day. If the house is cold if you were on your own you would maybe stick a jumper on or wrap the duvet round you to save money - can't do that when you have kids

AnxiousMum

Soubrette wrote: »

We would definitely be in a cheaper place with no children - we'd be in Canada No council tax there - I think they have a local income tax instead. I've not counted anything here though

It's just not called Council Tax.....it's Property Tax.....but they have it believe me! Someone's got to pay for the local services, and like here, it is based on the value of your home.

However....IF you were in Canada - you'd be alot better off with your child support - I'm in the UK, my ex is in Canada - and I have way less hassles than anybody dealing through the CSA with both parents living here.
At home, a non custodial parent cannot claim to be unemployed when child support is an issue - my ex tried this and the court basically said 'you've earnt over $100k each year for the last three years being self employed. You are therefore capable of earning this much per year, therefore your child support is based on earnings of $100k per year'. Funny how he all of a sudden rejuvenated the landscaping business and stopped doing cash jobs - as it hadn't served his purpose'.

It's too bad that the child support laws here are not more similar to Canada - you get your payments, the process is very short, and no divorce will be granted until the Judge is certain that the children are being provided for fairly by BOTH parents.