Husbands ExPartner and mother of his kids

suki1964

onetomany wrote: »

think your wage will be included with the csa hun, my x moved in with his girlfreind and he has to pay double

Less your ex got a rent book off his partner or she put him on the mortgage, as far as the CSA are concerned he has no housing costs so therefore he had more disposable income and that why his payments were increased.

Nothing to do with the new partners income what so ever

welshmoneylover

onetomany wrote: »

think your wage will be included with the csa hun, my x moved in with his girlfreind and he has to pay double

I didn't know that!

Why on earth should a new partner have to pay for the 'step children'?

3onitsway

onetomany wrote: »

think your wage will be included with the csa hun, my x moved in with his girlfreind and he has to pay double

Only if its an old CS1 case. And its not so much included in the assessment, its that if ex's new partner is earning, she can afford to contribute to the household expenses of their home, therefore giving the ex more disposable income towards the maintenance assesment. (Did that make any sense? )

If its a newer CS2 case it won't be looked at.

Dancing_Shoes

Are there really "people" out there that would happily take extra money from their ex's partners wages???:eek:

I certainly have more pride than to ever stoop as low as sponging off my ex's new partner!

onetomany

yes dont shout at me but we are under csa1 and hubby has no morgage etc before you have a go at me i didnt make the rules

onetomany

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

Are there really "people" out there that would happily take extra money from their ex's partners wages???:eek:

I certainly have more pride than to ever stoop as low as sponging off my ex's new partner![/QUte

well my husbond pays trowards my son from a previous marragie so why shouldnt my x partner?

yoni_one

welshmoneylover wrote: »

I didn't know that!

Why on earth should a new partner have to pay for the 'step children'?

Are you kidding me??? There are MANY families where the step dad has to pay for step children living in the same home. Lots of biological parents get off with paying nothing while the step parent contributes massively to the cost of the upkeep.

But people seem to less object to it that way around.

But just to clarify, as far as I understand it, the step parents wage is taken in to calculation of income in to the new home, and therefore frees up some income from the absent parent. The money is not taken directly from the step parent to top up maintenance paid.

Dancing_Shoes

yoni_one wrote: »

Are you kidding me??? There are MANY families where the step dad has to pay for step children living in the same home. Lots of biological parents get off with paying nothing while the step parent contributes massively to the cost of the upkeep.

But people seem to less object to it that way around.

But just to clarify, as far as I understand it, the step parents wage is taken in to calculation of income in to the new home, and therefore frees up some income from the absent parent. The money is not taken directly from the step parent to top up maintenance paid.

Yes but this is a choice that they make. To enforce it is completely wrong no-one should have to pay for children they didn'nt choose to bring into this world.
I am more than happy for my dh to pay for his other children but see no reason why I should have to as they have 2 parents, the same as I wouldn't expect anyone other than me or my dh to support our children. I understand that on csa1 it makes a difference but not to csa2.

From everything I have read the pwc who put their children first and just want the nrp to contribute fairly towards the cost of the childrens upbringing never mention the nrpp's wages. It is the other sort of pwc who is just after every penny they can regardless of the impact it has on the 2nd family that seem to mention other people bringing up their children.:rolleyes:

That is not to say I am always on the side of the nrp, when you choose to have children most of the time it is a joint decision and therefore you should always support the pwc financially for as long as the children are in full time education.

MissMoneypenny

MrsGibson wrote: »

As they both jointly own the property and she is refusing access she is therefore occupying his half of the house and in the eyes of the court is liable for all the mortgage payments! Thru the CSA my husband should be paying her £602 per month for the 2 children. At the minute he pays all the mortgage and gives his ex £250 a month which adds upto just over the £600 mark. The mortgage is not classed as child maintenance so if she were to go to the CSA only the £250 he is paying would be classed as maintenance so the solicitor had advised that he pay the £600 direct to her and state its maintenance but suggests she pay the mortgage with it.

It looks like the ex has been paying all the mortgage payments then, from the maintenance money your husband should have been paying for his children. Or he has been severely underpaying for his childrens maintenenace. I assume his ex hasn't taken legal advice.

When dividing their assets, surely his pension is part of their assets too and not just the house? Or has that law changed now?

She gave up her career to care for their children so doesn't that mean she gets to keep a larger % of their assets? Or has that been replaced so that she can have part of his pension for life? I know they weren't married, but a 20 year relationship is longer than a lot of marriages last and shows that they had a big commitment to each other.

Soubrette

yoni_one wrote: »

Are you kidding me??? There are MANY families where the step dad has to pay for step children living in the same home. Lots of biological parents get off with paying nothing while the step parent contributes massively to the cost of the upkeep.

But people seem to less object to it that way around.

But just to clarify, as far as I understand it, the step parents wage is taken in to calculation of income in to the new home, and therefore frees up some income from the absent parent. The money is not taken directly from the step parent to top up maintenance paid.

I can only say thank goodness I have a wonderful OH who subsides my children heavily.

You are also correct in saying that on CSA1 the expenses are divided between the NRP and their partner so it was assumed that for example housing costs would be paid by both and so the NRP has more disposable income - in some instances the income of the non resident parents partner is deemed low enough that it actually reduces the child support liability of the NRP eg it is assumed he pays more than 50% of housing costs - you don't hear much complaining about that though

On CSA2 - which would be relevent to the OP, the child maintenance is a set proportion of net income, almost always 20% for two children less number of nights they stay at the NRP ie a 1/7 reduction for each night per week they spend there.

Sou