Child Maintenence

PlayingHardball

I'd be tempted to stick with your private agreement, if it covers everything you need it to cover for your child.

I was happy to accept a lesser amount from my ex than what the CSA said he should pay, as long as I felt it was fair and he was consistent. We had a private agreement for a couple of years, then he stopped his direct debit to my account without discussing it with me. Silly man, I had no recourse but ask for help from the CSA. Of course, he had to pay more, and caused him to end up very bitter.

Bowski_1011

mitchaa wrote: »

His priority is all 3 children, not just yours so of course his cost to you will go down.

Surely you see this is fair?

I cannot see how that can possibly be fair? NRP's should not be able to have children and then go and live with another as a way to espcape paying for their own!!

How is that fair on the biological child? Why should they miss out while he puts a roof over the head of 2 other children. It shouldn't be allowed!

shell_542

They aren't escaping paying for their own child in this case, they are still paying maintenance, it is just reduced.

Why should a child in the NRP's household lose out because it's parents decided to get involved with a step family?

Bowski_1011

Fair enough I'm just talking about my own experience.

I'm not saying a child in the NRP should miss out, but it should not be the law that NRP don't have to pay for children they've had because they can't afford it due to their new life. Their new life should fit around supporting their child, I don't see how it's fair any other way. All NRP should pay towards their childrens upbringing.

stressed_eric_4

plus if the nrps girlfriend moves in with him, then her ctc/wtc will be reduced due to his wages so they should be assessed as a family unit as they are for all other benefits, the same as if a pwc partner moves in, whilst it won't affect teh amount of csa she gets it will affect the ctc/wtc