i have posted this on reply to other thread but please read

kelloggs36

You know what I mean - it is just a way of differentiating between those who are the NRPs and those who are step children of the NRP - they are not natural children of the NRP.

shell_542

kelloggs36 wrote: »

You know what I mean - it is just a way of differentiating between those who are the NRPs and those who are step children of the NRP - they are not natural children of the NRP.

These NEW children the NRP goes onto have are still their NATURAL children. Not all NRPs go on to take on step children.

Blob

It is just CSA jargon to justify the fact that they will take money from anyone to meet thte targets that they have and then get their bonus. They will take money from the children that they are supposed to be getting money for, and even the food out of the mouths of children as well!

They are allegedly there to reduce child povity, the truth is that it is just the oposit they make more than they get rid of by taking money that the Gov has said that one child needs to give to another! Talk about robing Peter to pay Paul or what!

Blonde_Bint

Kelloggs, try 'blood related child' might I suggest to be known as BRC as a reference:p we have the pedantics in the house tonight I see, welcome, and lovely of you to join us:rotfl:

just a suggestion if its carp just ignore me I was just trying to help I will take no offence and I wont start I promise.

kelloggs36

shell_542 wrote: »

These NEW children the NRP goes onto have are still their NATURAL children. Not all NRPs go on to take on step children.

As I said, read my post for what I meant

chriszzz

mrsnem wrote: »

wouldnt the simple answer be just to take whats entitled from the exs earnings the whole point is that they are making my children suffer which has nothing to do with his ex relationship i will add again my hubby doesnt mind paying for the upkeep of his 2 children what he and i object to is that its not just based on his wages its based on child tax credit i recieve for my own children which after all still need looking totally agree here!! Simple resolve nrp pays his maintenance based on his earnings, nrpp has no financial responsibility to oh children. after yes we do claim a little housing benefit after all he is on a low wage but atleast he does work we have found out today after much ringning around that we can infact now add this extra amount to our rent housing benefit if we could not god nos what we would do even the lady from the benefits place was shocked so cross fingers hopefully it wont be tomuc of a struggle to keep a roof overmy head . going from75 a month to 288 is such a shock

it is a bad thing for some the csa but good when exs refuse to pay well sometimes if they get there fingers out so to speak

The whole system on child support needs re-dressing and that includes the attitude in which the csa work with their clients. they should be accountable for the mistakes they make as they are supposed to be trained to deal with child support.

Steve40_2

Upon reading through this thread i have noted that there are certain comments regarding why should a child of a pwc miss out because NRP's new children are being provided for. I cant believe what i am reading are we saying that NRP's should not have the right to start a new life with a new family and have children because it takes benefit away from the children in the old family . I dont know if anybody has noted other threads on this forum where by NRP's familys are suffering and not able to have the luxurys all children have .
Are children to be used as a weapon to extract money and cause misery to the NRP's new family .
Or does having one child with one person automatically mean that a life of chastity should be enforced .

EITHER WAY CHILDREN DO NOT ASK TO BE BORN THEY BARE NO MALLICE ON EACH OTHER UNTIL IT IS INSTALLED . THEY ALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE TREATED EQUALLY AND ITS ABOUT TIME SOMEBODY WOKE UP AND REALISED

kelloggs36

No they don't but at the same time, there is always a choice to be made, and you can't complain you can't afford something you chose to have anyway when you have already got responsibilities.

Soubrette

Steve40 wrote: »

Are children to be used as a weapon to extract money and cause misery to the NRP's new family .

I don't want to comment on the rest of your thread as I certainly believe that people are entitled to a fresh start.

However, I know personally of one case where an nrp has chosen to give up work to look after his step children (no natural children in the second relationship) purely due to financial reasons ie he didn't want to pay any child support and the nrp was happy to collude with this. I am sure he cannot be the only one to have done this.

Are children to be used as a weapon to keep money and cause misery to the NRP's old family?

Sou

Steve40_2

kelloggs36 wrote: »

No they don't but at the same time, there is always a choice to be made, and you can't complain you can't afford something you chose to have anyway when you have already got responsibilities.

when a person gets involved with somebody with kids that person is making the choice of wether to take the children on and support them both physically and financially . wether we like it or not it occurs to both PWC's and NRP's the problem that society has is that they get stuck in a passed life and have to learn to understand the fact that life goes on and doesnt stop at the end of a relationship that has'nt worked so why should one child live in poverty because a so called civilised individual has got the hump about a passed relationship and believes that there child is more important .