maintenance if pwc and another man have baby

kelloggs36

It might mean that the case would be phased in under the new rules if PWC makes a new claim against another NRP.

Blackpool_Saver

I cannot get my head around someone thinking that a NRP would have to pay for a new child that's not his.....

stokefan

Blackpool_Saver wrote: »

I cannot get my head around someone thinking that a NRP would have to pay for a new child that's not his.....

i did think that the nrp wouldnt be affected by this, but it never hurts to put your mind at rest. im not clued up on this csa malarky, but loads on here are.

if everyone knew the answers about everything - forums like this would not be needed

Blonde_Bint

Blackpool_Saver wrote: »

I cannot get my head around someone thinking that a NRP would have to pay for a new child that's not his.....

Well the thing is, a new child in the household is going to affect what money there is for the child already there isnt it? but having slept on it:o i've had another idea, hold on to your hats ...

say we pay 500 quid to our pwc (dont know what he pays cos i never thought about it lol) then our pwc has another child with new bloke (not the NRP) then we get a letter saying your going to have to pay 750 now because its going to cost them more for a child that is nothing to do with you, well thats not our problem at all is it, so that letter wouldnt happen. Detangelation complete:o Blackpool Saver you've changed my mind. lol, leave me alone; its your fault i'm confused you didnt explain it very well:rotfl: that drunk comment was probably for me lol:rotfl:

Blonde_Bint

CMAC wrote: »

If on new rules nothing will change

If on old rules and the father of the new child does not live with the pwc then it will make a very big difference as the maintenance needed figure will be affected.

So are we saying that if on old rules then the NRP could have to pay more for his CM because the PWC had a baby with someone else? IF ON OLD RULES.

i'm coming round to the fact that actually yes NRP shouldnt have to pay for someone elses child but look at it this way, on the new rules the NRPs first children lose out in monetary terms because of children living under his roof which biologically are not his. I admit i'm a tad thick but do you get where i'm coming from? be aware I get mixed up and mix things together.

stokefan

Blonde_Bint wrote: »

So are we saying that if on old rules then the NRP could have to pay more for his CM because the PWC had a baby with someone else? IF ON OLD RULES.

i'm coming round to the fact that actually yes NRP shouldnt have to pay for someone elses child but look at it this way, on the new rules the NRPs first children lose out in monetary terms because of children living under his roof which biologically are not his. I admit i'm a tad thick but do you get where i'm coming from? be aware I get mixed up and mix things together.

i do understand you yes, but as you say thats not the nrp's fault. if the new couple (including pwc) cannot afford a new child in the household then im afraid they shouldnt have one. why should the nrp have to pay for something he has no control over, if possible i would love get custody of my baba so if she cannot afford to raise both children i will take mine of her hands

then this opens up a new question, if the nrp gets custody of a child (becomes pwc) and the parent without custody doesnt work or recieve benefits, as her new partner works, what would the newly found pwc get maintenence wise? i presume nothing??
again im not saying that the bloke who has no biological bond should have to fork out for a child of which he has no responsibility for.

blimey this stuff is hard work:rotfl:

btw this aint what im going through at the minute, im just wondering what would happen if it did

Blonde_Bint

lol. no just a little theoretical indulgence, which could happen some day, and does to some people. All this pwc nrp business has me really confused. There were times in the past when I didnt fully understand my own circumstances lol.

Think i'm straight with it now though, NRP payments do not change at all. nothing to do with him even though his child living in that house will maybe have less because of it. lol. I get there in the end but once i've got hold of the wrong end of the stick if I like it i'm loathe to give it up:D

mommarat

Blonde_Bint wrote: »

So are we saying that if on old rules then the NRP could have to pay more for his CM because the PWC had a baby with someone else? IF ON OLD RULES.

i'm coming round to the fact that actually yes NRP shouldnt have to pay for someone elses child but look at it this way, on the new rules the NRPs first children lose out in monetary terms because of children living under his roof which biologically are not his. I admit i'm a tad thick but do you get where i'm coming from? be aware I get mixed up and mix things together.

Whichever rules you are on you only pay for your own child and if there are 2 nrp's then the mainenance requirement is split between the 2 maintenance is for the qualifying children

mommarat

If you go to the Options website you can work your maintenance out for yourselves there is a calculator on the site and other info you might find useful:rolleyes:

mommarat

stokefan wrote: »

what happens if you have got a private agreement with the pwc and are paying them more than than the pwc would get going through csa as she was on benefits. eg, 30 quid aweek when they would get 20quid off the csa.

the the pwc and her new fella have another kid and she doesnt work but he does, how does this affect what she will be getting if the csa get involved.

will she be entitled to it all or just the 20 quid she is now??

Just been on the Child Maintenance options site and done a quick calculation and your MA should go down for each child that is not yours in your ex-partners household. I APOLOGISE TO STOKE FAN FOR THIS POST I THINK I NEED GLASSES, GOT MY NRP AND PWC'S THE WRONG WAY ROUND. But the calculator is useful (if used correctly) to give you some idea on what your ma should be. I really don't think it is going to alter the maintenance you pay because your ex has a child that isnt yours.