How far does your child maintenance go?

Soubrette

shell_542 wrote: »

I was talking about society in general until I made the comment about having a cooperative partner. LOL

I could be wrong but I don't think it's that unusual for NRP's to start relationships with PWC's. Reading around on public forums it seems the norm and usually NRP's meeting partner's with no children is not as common.

Possibly - my own experiences say otherwise but they are limited to a handful of families.

Sou

Dancing_Shoes

Soubrette wrote: »

I think the problem for me is that for every problem an NRP has, there will be an equivalent problem that the PWC has eg PWC refuses access, NRP refuses to pay. NRP lies about income, PWC lies about being on benefits.

The trouble with the idea that we have our children's best interests is that we all think we do As I said in a previous post, some PWCs withhold contact because they genuinely feel their NRP is a horrible horrible person and it will be better for the children not to see them - perhaps the NRP isn't too nice or perhaps it is only the PWCs perception of this but whatever the reason the PWC will be sure they are following the best interests of the child even if, from the outside, it is obvious that is not the case. Likewise regarding child maintenance payments - no one thinks they don't pay because they are tight gits - they have reasons and excuses such as how none of the money gets to the children, they have to genuinely believe or believe they are selfish carp parents

I like the idea of automatic mediation for people divorcing with families so that all this is thrashed out and the expectations of both sides are clear and reasonable from the start. I also like the idea of parental care being temporarily or permanently suspended if one parent no longer acts like one from a third person perspective ie the courts.

I don't think the CSA is great but I have yet to see anyone come up with some really good better ideas on here - how can a fair proportion of income go from one family to another without incurring disproportionate costs for the tax payer? If you think of something then you should run for prime minister

No, I don't think you're a PWC hater - I think you're like me, ever so slightly biased towards your own side of the argument but able to at least agree that it is not as one sided as others would like to pretend.

Sou

I agree there are many problems that crop up i.e every time you could think of a way to do it better than the csa then another problem crops up on the other side. I agree also that I like most posters on here can see it from both sides but will always see it clearer from my side iyswim.
I do like the mediation idea though and the idea to thrash out ideas from both sides of the fence in a controlled environment with a 3rd part present to help :-)

Our pwc hates my husband for leaving and she hates me for having him and our children, there is not much I can do about that so I tried many many ways to be pleasant and to stay out of their arguments but she happily tells family and friends that she will punish him until the day he dies (which she has also said she hopes is sooner rather than later:rolleyes:), surely she must see that in the long run the people who are most hurt by this all are the children
I may seem bitter in some of my posts but this is because she has dragged us through hell and back, did we ever stop paying or miss a payments? No!
Did we ever stop sending extra payments to the children? No!
It got so ridiculous with solicitors and police involved and started to affect our children together asweel, in the end we were fighting to force children to have contact with us and that wasn't in anyone's best interests. I have to hope along with others that the truth comes out eventually

tooraloora

shell_542 wrote: »

If both PWC and NRP are willing and able, wouldn't it be sensible financially to have 50/50 residence. Then both parents would be contributing a fair amount to the household costs. And just share the other expenses 50/50.

I'd have been happy for this to happen but my ex wasn't interested in having our children to stay for an afternoon, let alone half the week. I tried very hard to get him to remain in contact with them but he felt that they cramped his style!

In terms of how far the child maintenance went, well, thanks to my ex husband and the CSA I didn't really see any of it! When he left, he insisted on a CSA assessment (12 years ago) so that I didn't 'rip him off' (his words). After which the CSA informed me that he had to pay me £35 pw in maintenance for his 2 children (nothing for me as I worked full-time). That's not £35 each, that's in total. His salary at the time was £40K pa but he lied about his income and they let him get away with it.

In the 4 years that the CSA were involved he asked for reassessment 11 times. 11 times they reduced his liability because his circumstances had changed. They hadn't changed but he was very adept at playing the system. He was supposed to pay 4 weekly but managed to stretch it out each month, paying a bit later each time until he was eventually paying me 3 months in arrears. The CSA never made him catch up.

At the point where I finally lost the will to fight for money for his children, I closed the CSA claim because I had been awarded a payment of £13.45 pw in total and then was informed that he'd appealed it and won so I had to pay him back some of the pittance he'd grudgingly handed over. I dismissed the CSA, even though they warned me that I'd get nothing if I did. I pointed out that I was getting virtually nothing anyway so I wasn't losing anything at all.

Dancing_Shoes

tooraloora - That is despicable!:mad:
Is your ex self employed? If not maybe it would be worth re-opening the case?

shell_542

tooraloora wrote: »

I'd have been happy for this to happen but my ex wasn't interested in having our children to stay for an afternoon, let alone half the week. I tried very hard to get him to remain in contact with them but he felt that they cramped his style!

That's why I wrote "willing" in my post LOL

mitchaa

If the PWC is on benefits (many are being single parents) then they dont really have a leg to stand on with an opinion due to the fact that they are not supporting their own kids either. (The state taxpayers are)

I believe in the earlier years, tax credits and child benefit and any other related child benefit more than takes care of child costs.
I would say 90% of the time it's the NRP who gets the short straw.


If a child costs £5000pa to keep every year, and the PWC receives £4k in child related benefits, then the costs to each parent should be £500 each as its surely unfair the PWC receiving 100% of the child related benefit and not the NRP?

Viper_7

mitchaa wrote: »

If the PWC is on benefits (many are being single parents) then they dont really have a leg to stand on with opinion due to the fact that they are not supporting their own kids either. (The state taxpayers are)

I believe in the earlier years, tax credits and child benefit and any other related child benefit more than takes care of child costs.

I would say 90% of the time it's the NRP who gets the short straw.

I'd add it's the NRP's extended Family that gets the short straw.
The grandparents etc have no rights at all. The NRP has more juggling to ensure their children see their extended family. This is never taken into account.

elfen

Erm, I don't have any kids, but I have a niece, but I can't see how breastfeeding a child means they can't go to the NRP? There ARE such things as expressing milk and taking it with them, they're still getting breast milk, just out of a bottle. The more important thing is that they are seeing BOTH of their parents.

I can kind of see this from both sides. The PWC has to bring the child/ren up mainly on their own, using one income to cover the costs of more, made harder by a NRP who refuses to pay. This then complicated by a PWC who refuses to let the NRP see their offspring, unless they are given a hefty amount. I'm all for fairness, but reading some posts and seeing NRP's who have paid paying 40% of their monthly income leaving them barely able to look after their own family? Again, I can see how they have, in effect, two families to support, and this should be taken into account, along with what the PWC gets. And I don't agree with the only getting £20 maintainence if on benefits, the extra should either be given to the PWC, or put into trust for the child/ren when they turn 18 or 21, or that can be accessed when large purchases to benefit them need to be made and cannot be afforded by the PWC.

It makes me sad when some mothers say they won't let their child see their father, even under supervision. A child has a right to know both parents, not to be the innocent caught inbetween the possible infighting and !!!!!ing by one, the other or both. I hope that if I ever havechildren and split from their father, that I can have the decency as some on here have to be able to rise above the whys and wherefores of splitting with a partner, and allow them to see their child, as they have the right to do, REGARDLESS of if they pay or not (in an ideal world all NRP's would pay some maintainence, but this doesn't always happen, as I am well aware)

shell_542

elfen wrote: »

Erm, I don't have any kids, but I have a niece, but I can't see how breastfeeding a child means they can't go to the NRP? There ARE such things as expressing milk and taking it with them, they're still getting breast milk, just out of a bottle. The more important thing is that they are seeing BOTH of their parents. If a baby is solely breastfed then using a bottle can confuse them. They can either have problems taking the bottle or they may then refuse the breast. I believe if it went to court then a judge would actually restrict overnight stays with a father while a baby is being breastfed ... until the Judge deemed that the breastfeeding was continuing due to the mother's best interests rather than the baby's.

I can kind of see this from both sides. The PWC has to bring the child/ren up mainly on their own, using one income to cover the costs of more, made harder by a NRP who refuses to pay. This then complicated by a PWC who refuses to let the NRP see their offspring, unless they are given a hefty amount. I'm all for fairness, but reading some posts and seeing NRP's who have paid paying 40% of their monthly income leaving them barely able to look after their own family? Again, I can see how they have, in effect, two families to support, and this should be taken into account, along with what the PWC gets. And I don't agree with the only getting £20 maintainence if on benefits, the extra should either be given to the PWC, or put into trust for the child/ren when they turn 18 or 21, or that can be accessed when large purchases to benefit them need to be made and cannot be afforded by the PWC.

There has to be a cut off doesn't there? Maybe highly unlikely, but a PWC could be receiving say £800 a month in child support, the same as some full time workers receive a month, should they then get their benefits, housing benefits, council tax benefits etc on top? Where is the incentive to go back to work? Wouldn't the tax payers money be better spent somewhere else, where it is really needed. The country needs to get people back in work and paying their own way, not enabling them to stay at home on benefits.

elfen

But aren't children entitled to have at least one parent there at the time they finish school, especially when in primary school/still under 11? If the PWC works, they still get maintenance, but this can push their income over the NRP's, which can create problems if the NRP now has a bigger family. So why isn't their second family taken into account, allowing ALL children from the NRP to have the same amount allocated to them by whatever means?