Ex-wife losing the plot

Comyface

My brother's ex-wife went to the CSA because she got greedy (imo) and he was told to pay less than he was already paying.

He just uses the extra money to buy treats for the kids now.

LizzieS_2

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

My ex-wife has asked me to increase the child support that I pay as it hasn't changed for a few years. I could agree but she won't say by how much she'd like it increased. She has suggested (threatened) that she could go to the CSA - which is is fine by me as I already pay 15% of my income. The reason it hasn't increased for a few years is because it wasn't reduced when No1 son left full time education and I was paying 20%.

So, I have two questions.
1. If she chooses to use the CSA should I cancel my standing order to her until the CSA complete their assessment?
2. How long do the CSA normally take?

I'm sure the answer to No 1 is 'No' so really just No 2 that I need help with.

Thanks in advance.

GG

Personally I would say you are both being stubborn.

Involving the csa after years of being amicable could create more problems for both of you.

It could take months to sort out, even if you have a regular consistant income.

Why not just say, look here's my last 3 payslips I am paying 15%, I will pay a little pocket money to Child 2 to help you*, I've heard a lot of stories about the csa and to protect myself I will be putting money aside from the date they contact me instead of continuing the current Standing Order (or whatever) until the day they say what I owe.

*only put that in as you said you would pay more anyway.

Don't know if your ex has had changes and needs a little help, eg child 1 may have a job and to get on his feet he his paying less board, or child 1 is at uni and she gets no help towards that from anyone - perhaps focusing on the reason rather than unknown amount would help you both decide the best way forward as parents.

Gorgeous_George

Thank you all for your replies.

I will not show her my payslips - ever. We divorced because of her adultery and I believe my word is my bond. You may think that it is stubbornness but I think it is more than that.

When we were married she had the right to see my payslips. I now have a far more loyal and trustworthy wife. I do not believe my ex-wife has any right to see my wages. If my kids ever want to see that I paid what was right, they can take my payslips home for scrutiny.

Essentially, I will offer my payslips to the CSA (or my kids when they reach 18) but not my ex-wife.

GG

smartpicture

All these people saying stop paying the money - that's all very well, and it certainly punishes the ex-wife if that is the intention, but surely the intention of the money is to contribute to his childrens living expenses and ensure that they have a better way of life as a result? It's impossible to stop the money without making the children suffer - is that really what you want, OP?

Gorgeous_George

No, of course not. That is why I think the answer to Question No 1 is 'No'.

However, my money does not directly benefit my child. It is swalllowed up in the mountain of debt that she has - hence her cunning plan to extract even more cash from me.

I could afford to help and if she asked me nicely, I probably would - despite the history. I really feel sorry for her latest husband - he's a good guy. Hey ho, maybe I'll phone her tomorrow.

GG

marksoton

smartpicture wrote: »

All these people saying stop paying the money - that's all very well, and it certainly punishes the ex-wife if that is the intention, but surely the intention of the money is to contribute to his childrens living expenses and ensure that they have a better way of life as a result? It's impossible to stop the money without making the children suffer - is that really what you want, OP?

With all due respect i suspect you have not experienced the way the CSA treat these matters.

For a payment to be accepted by the CSA they will generally expect the PWC to verify it.

The PWC in this case is using the CSA as a threat. That would suggest she will not verify these payments and will go for duplicate monies.

The NRP ( GG in this case ) will end up paying twice. That is neither right or fair. The children will not suffer. Both parents are responsible for the financial upbringing of the child.

The NRP has been fully compliant, any temporary shortage of money is completely down to the choice of the PWC.

pd001

marksoton wrote: »

With all due respect i suspect you have not experienced the way the CSA treat these matters.

For a payment to be accepted by the CSA they will generally expect the PWC to verify it.

The PWC in this case is using the CSA as a threat. That would suggest she will not verify these payments and will go for duplicate monies.

The NRP ( GG in this case ) will end up paying twice. That is neither right or fair. The children will not suffer. Both parents are responsible for the financial upbringing of the child.

The NRP has been fully compliant, any temporary shortage of money is completely down to the choice of the PWC.

Totally agree with all of the above.
The OP should immediately stop all payments to the PWC.

If the OP's ex wife is threatening to go to the csa and..
if the OP is indeed paying 15% of his net take home pay to the pwc then.....
let the pwc go to the csa.

In the meantime the OP should put to one side the payment that he should be making to the pwc as he will probably need this money to eventually send to the csa.

CMAC_2

marksoton wrote: »

Sorry but the reality is the CSA will generally disregard this evidence. It's not the NRP who is choosing this course of action it is the PWC.

In situations like this the mantra " you are only hurting the child " is very unfair to the OP.

A person who has consistently paid for their children should never be made to feel they are not providing.

I am very intrested in your reality are you saying that the csa wont accept a payment during the ipp (even when the other parent says they have not had it) if the receipt clearly says IPP CSA payment and is back up with say a bank statement

CMAC_2

"A person who has consistently paid for their children should never be made to feel they are not providing."

If the withhold the payment pending a csa assesment then they are not providing for there child. I dont understand your comment

marksoton

CMAC wrote: »

I am very intrested in your reality are you saying that the csa wont accept a payment during the ipp (even when the other parent says they have not had it) if the receipt clearly says IPP CSA payment and is back up with say a bank statement

Yes. It seems to be common place for the NRP to have to go above the burden of proof. I suspect this is because quite often it is easier for caseworkers to take this stance.

CMAC wrote: »

"A person who has consistently paid for their children should never be made to feel they are not providing."

If the withhold the payment pending a csa assesment then they are not providing for there child. I dont understand your comment

The MEF sets an effective date for the NRP. Any money they pay in the interim between the MEF and a payment schedule must be verified by the PWC. If it is not the CSA will treat it as arrears.

In this case GG would best protect himself by stopping payment to the PWC. If she denies payment he will face an uphill struggle to prove otherwise.