My ex is taking our 17 year old daughter away for a fortnight

shell_542

PlayingHardball wrote: »

Shell_542 you should have shared your thoughtfullness with the rest of this thread rather than cowardly edit your nasty comment about my personal imput to the OP and relating to the situation.

I am not a coward thank you. I wrote that I didn't understand the relevance of your last paragraph to the thread, but when reading again I did, so I deleted my last paragraph myself. Please do not make it out that I wrote someething nasty aimed towards yourself. That is a lie.

Again I'm sorry your ex is a pillock. Good for you for financing it so your daughter can see her father. But just because your ex purposely avoids paying ANY child support for his child, doesn't mean the ex in the OP should be grouped in with him. He has been paying child support for his child, he just thinks it is fair to lower it whilst the child is with him, which happens with the CSA and should be allowed to happen on a private agreement ... which is EXACTLY what I stated in my first post on this thread. I've not been nasty to anyone, the OP included.

frugallass

OP - My ex once tried that one on me (he aint done it since)

Fair enough, I just sent her on holiday with no spending money therefore it probably ended up costing him more in the long run anyway

SoontobePWCduetoCSA

NO the NRP should not reduce the money, the CSA is worked out on average of a 52 week period and takes into account access

BUT the PWC should send the child benefit and child tax credit with the child for that two week period after all its child benefit and child tax credit and should go with the child.

Morally the PWC should not get benefit from both the tax and maintenance systems, legally the CSA couldn't give a flying ****.

As you can see from my screen name I'm soon to be a PWC again, actually I am at the moment but because we can't sell the house we have to live together.
When I do become a single PWC, yes I will be going to the CSA and claiming my support only so his B**** of an ex gets her maintenance halved. And NO I won't be taking a penny off him, though the CSA will be told he is paying what he owes.

Blob

Sounds like a further sucess of the CSA in destroying a second family, as they have been used yet again as a weapon by a vindictive ex!

jamespir

frugallass wrote: »

OP - My ex once tried that one on me (he aint done it since)

Fair enough, I just sent her on holiday with no spending money therefore it probably ended up costing him more in the long run anyway

well it just proves how greedy you are and a vindictive cow you are to

what an attitude you have its people like you that cause this situation with the csa im so glad im not married to anyone like you:mad:

shell_542

SoontobePWCduetoCSA wrote: »

NO the NRP should not reduce the money, the CSA is worked out on average of a 52 week period and takes into account access

.

It was never actually established whether the child support is paid through the CSA. I think the majority of people, including myself, who said it should be cut ONLY if it was a private agreement as then the overnights may not have been accounted for. Just to clarify.

AnxiousMum

SoontobePWCduetoCSA wrote: »

When I do become a single PWC, yes I will be going to the CSA and claiming my support only so his B**** of an ex gets her maintenance halved. And NO I won't be taking a penny off him, though the CSA will be told he is paying what he owes.

How awfully vindictive - I cannot believe that a mother will jeopardise another child's future out of spite like this - how horrid - especially when you say that you won't be taking the money from him for your children, but ensuring that his last ex gets less. Lovely world we live in!

To the OP - if he pays the full support - would you be prepared to send suitable spending money with the child? Yes, rent needs to be covered, as the residence still needs to be there for them on their return - but electricity, gas, food, petrol - will all be lowered during the absence. Maybe you could see to providing spending money out of the maintenance. My ex pays a set amount every month - but when the kids go to him summer and Christmas (overseas) - they basically take that month's money back with them as their spending money - meaning that their dad's costs are not as high - they can pay for their own golfing, treats, snacks, baseball game tickets etc.

SoontobePWCduetoCSA

AnxiousMum wrote: »

How awfully vindictive - I cannot believe that a mother will jeopardise another child's future out of spite like this - how horrid - especially when you say that you won't be taking the money from him for your children, but ensuring that his last ex gets less. Lovely world we live in!

How am I being vindictive, she has destroyed my marriage with her greed. She's had a house mortgage free in the divorce settlement + maintenance payments. She has remarried, gone on to have 2 further children, remortgaged the house to do a fancy loft conversion, have fitted bedroom furniture, put in a new bathroom and kitchen and up to last year went on holiday 3 times a year. She has now just bought a caravan.
She refuses to acknowledge the shared care + numerous other things meaning we have a massive arrears bill since it took years for them to sort out (only reduced slightly as he was paying ongoing maintance)

Also how am I being vindictive, when we move apart I'm entitled to go to the CSA and claim my share.
Because I choose not to take the money because like her I can afford to support our child financially I don't understand how that makes me vindictive.
Time is more important than money and I would prefer my husband to spend time with the child and have the money to be able to treat him as and when he wants to, not worry how he is going to put food on the table when he visits.

How am I jeopardizing another child's future? As I said to the letter of the law I'm entitled to that money just as much as she is, so regardless of the fact I can support our child myself what makes her so deserving that she is entitled to it all and myself none?????? Or does PWC greed transfer not only from the NRP but to any other PWC he(she) may have as well.

PWC's (some) think its their god given right to take everything from a NRP including money from any other children he may have living with him - CTC and disabled CTC.

Well this PWC is going to stop one PWC's greed.

Oh and btw the benefit of this is that not only does our child get more time with his dad the 'first' child will also get more time as he will have a little more in his pocket to be able to do this.
In this case both children will finally benefit of having a dad in their lives and after all unless a PWC is money grabbing doesn't this put the child first?

So sorry to put a rain on your parade I'm not being vindictive I'm putting MY child and HER child first unlike her who sees £ signs and couldn't give a fig about anybody but herself.

Blonde_Bint

To be honest guys I think you are taking SoonToBePWC's post in the wrong way. Lets be honest the straight forward fact of this particular matter is when she splits from DH she has the right to use the CSA. Also she is saying that the money she then gets she wants her ex to have for both of the children. Who knows may be she and her soon to be ex have talked it through and decided this is the best for the kids.

We dont know how she has lived for the past however many years. we dont know the things that have been said and done, OK yes I know 2 wrongs dont make a right.

Its a shame for a marriage to split because of a first relationship, but in all honesty, I am an NRPP and looking back at past years and past miseries I dont know how I didnt just leave, 'saint' or 'doormat'?????? I dont know. But all I can say is that at some points the desire to just pack up and go out the door was HUGE, to get away from the PWC not DH . Sometimes I looked at him and thought 'I dont even know if I love you anymore', it was hard to tell if I was there for love or pity at that point in time I couldnt tell you.

In short as an NRPP with a PWC who has tried everything over the years to make our lives insufferable I understand where she is coming from. She isnt saying 'right, boy oh boy i'm gonna stick that knife right in now, I cant wait:j' thats not what she's saying. Just that shes going to have what shes entitled to AND THAT SHE ISNT GOING TO STICK THE KNIFE IN. PWC will get a little less (shes probably going to smile at that:p) but she'll only get what shes entitled to;)

changing the subject a bit, if when they split she doesnt go to the CSA is it not that they do not take into account a private agreement anyway? If he is paying CSA for one perhaps its better all round to pay both that way then the CSA can account for the fact the is paying 2 separate PWCs? What do we think, yeah or nay?

kelloggs36

jamespir wrote: »

well it just proves how greedy you are and a vindictive cow you are to

what an attitude you have its people like you that cause this situation with the csa im so glad im not married to anyone like you:mad:

And not paying any maintenance is not vindictive? If no maintenance is paid, then why should the PWC cough up all the money when the NRP takes child on holiday - this is the only chance that NRP actually has to take some financial responsibility!! (Not including those who pay regularly of course).