How far does your child maintenance go?

loobyloo0302

Soubrette wrote: »

I assume he doesn't pay for her rent though On a more personal note - I would not be happy with a person with such a defined view of what was his and mine moneywise but if it works for you then good luck with it

Sou

I can assure you that I'm not happy with the situation as their father well knows, and have applied for a housing association for just me and the kids. It goes further than just his paying csa and not providing for our two but I wont go into that. As things go, though, we private rent, so technically in their eyes, I have a roof over mine and my kids heads... so we're stuck, living as a seperate family, all because he cannot treat two babies, the same way he treats two nearly teens Oh and secondly, I can guarantee I spend ALOT more providing for our kids and paying bills than he does on rent every month.. it all adds up.

LizzieS_2

loobyloo0302 wrote: »

I can assure you that I'm not happy with the situation as their father well knows, and have applied for a housing association for just me and the kids. It goes further than just his paying csa and not providing for our two but I wont go into that. As things go, though, we private rent, so technically in their eyes, I have a roof over mine and my kids heads... so we're stuck, living as a seperate family, all because he cannot treat two babies, the same way he treats two nearly teens Oh and secondly, I can guarantee I spend ALOT more providing for our kids and paying bills than he does on rent every month.. it all adds up.

He must have a lot spare each month:

On another thread you say he earns 21K (thats over 16K net)
If he has arrears, the maximum the csa will take is 6.4K
That leaves him with at least 9.6K
And you also state your earnings to be 5K last year and will be taking a third maternity leave shortly.

LizzieS_2

elfen wrote: »

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?

On csa2, there is a reduction applied for the children in the nrp household before previous children are taken into account.

For example, 2 children in each house & nrp earns £300pw.
Nrp children get £60pw, pwc children only £48pw.

Maybe the csa should collect the £60 too so it becomes more obvious that it is for children in the nrp household.

Viper_7

The maintenance should be split. Some of it goes to the PWC, the rest goes to the child in trust until they are 18. Just as it would be saved if the parents were still together.

LizzieS_2

elfen wrote: »

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.

40% only applies if there are arrears - not always the nrps fault

They have one family to support and one they choose to support.

Disagree your last point entirely. If pwc wants the full maintenance instead of £20pw above benefit levels, there is the option to work. As for trust funds, why should tax payers fund people who choose not to work?

LizzieS_2

Viper_7 wrote: »

I also like how even when the NRP has good access, they get no benefits - yet the PWC gets the full 100% working Tax credit and child benefit.

WTC is based on the income of the household so even suggesting halving the amount received will be unjust (one way or the other depending on earnings).
On true shared care, the system could be changed to suit and give each say 50% of what they would get under TC rules if they were wholly pwc. CB again could be split if legislation was changed.

The "discount" the NRP gets for having access is a pittance, and the NRP is usually the one going back and forth dropping off and collecting as the PWC cracks the whip and holds all the cards.

If 1/7 reduction is a pittance, then surely 6/7 payment is also a pittance. I think you are looking at this from the other benefits above.

The NRP usually come out of the break up with a 25 - 75% split.
The vast majority of NRP's end up renting as they are kicked out the main house in order to provide the PWC with a roof over their head

So they get half, less, or more than pwc. Judging by this forum, most seem to claim less than pwc gets. On the bright side, most then go on to live with a pwc (who in theory would have also taken most of the assets).

The NRP still has to provide clothing/food/entertainment to a similar extent as the PWC.

Depends if shared care also = shared costs. Frequently it doesn't (one way or the other).

Also if the PWC re-marries then the maintenance doesn't change as it's (for the child) So the newly married couple could be on joint incomes of 50K receiving a good £200 a month in maintenance, a good 1k in tax credits/child benefits and the NRP situation is still trying to survive and any changes in their circumstances like new relationsips/more kids makes naff all difference to the payments in the grand scheme of things.
Your maths is carp here, on 50K there certainly would not be 1K in tax credits.
A pwcp is not responsible for the children and should be expected to pay (though most will pay).

I did a calculation of what would happen if we did shared care. To be fair I also allowed for each claiming CB & TC for one child. For parental care I worked out the incomes after I had increased my hours to 20 and ex reduced his to 20.

Result, ex would have additional costs of keeping his chilren half the week on £60+ a week less than he has currently. Also he would have to pay for half of all their other costs (clothes, trips etc).

Poor me would lose a whopping £9pw. Still, with a saving on gas/elec food and getting half of the direct costs I could buy loads of new handbags and shoes :j

speedster

handbags and shoes!!

essential purchases with child maintenance!! :whistle:

LizzieS_2

mitchaa wrote: »

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)

Yes taxpayers may be supporting them, it doesn't mean they cannot have an opinion though. You have to look much deeper into why some chose benefits - childcare availability is poor in some areas of the country, others are temporarily (maybe for 10 years) worse off coming off benefits - in other words the system itself doesn't help people work.

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

Naive you are

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

Where's the facts to back your theory up?

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?

Child related benefits are also income related. PWC is usually the one who's got to sort the childcare out/do it themselves while NRP is free to work whatever hours they want. To get a true cost, you have to put both parents on an even footing with both personally taking equal responsibility for care & finance.

Sometimes Mitch you are hard work, especially as you claim to have no personal interest in this board.

LizzieS_2

shell_542 wrote: »

I think it would be a lot easier for an NRP to handle 50/50 if they have a cooperative partner who is at home with their "children of marriage" anyway

I agree that is what does frequently happen. It comes down to the nrp still looking at financial provision over practical personal childcare for their child, while the pwc is usually doing the opposite.

Viper_7

Originally Posted by Viper_7
I also like how even when the NRP has good access, they get no benefits - yet the PWC gets the full 100% working Tax credit and child benefit.

WTC is based on the income of the household so even suggesting halving the amount received will be unjust (one way or the other depending on earnings).
On true shared care, the system could be changed to suit and give each say 50% of what they would get under TC rules if they were wholly pwc. CB again could be split if legislation was changed.

The "discount" the NRP gets for having access is a pittance, and the NRP is usually the one going back and forth dropping off and collecting as the PWC cracks the whip and holds all the cards.

If 1/7 reduction is a pittance, then surely 6/7 payment is also a pittance. I think you are looking at this from the other benefits above.

The NRP usually come out of the break up with a 25 - 75% split.
The vast majority of NRP's end up renting as they are kicked out the main house in order to provide the PWC with a roof over their head

So they get half, less, or more than pwc. Judging by this forum, most seem to claim less than pwc gets. On the bright side, most then go on to live with a pwc (who in theory would have also taken most of the assets).

The NRP still has to provide clothing/food/entertainment to a similar extent as the PWC.

Depends if shared care also = shared costs. Frequently it doesn't (one way or the other).

Also if the PWC re-marries then the maintenance doesn't change as it's (for the child) So the newly married couple could be on joint incomes of 50K receiving a good £200 a month in maintenance, a good 1k in tax credits/child benefits and the NRP situation is still trying to survive and any changes in their circumstances like new relationsips/more kids makes naff all difference to the payments in the grand scheme of things.
Your maths is carp here, on 50K there certainly would not be 1K in tax credits.
A pwcp is not responsible for the children and should be expected to pay (though most will pay).

I did a calculation of what would happen if we did shared care. To be fair I also allowed for each claiming CB & TC for one child. For parental care I worked out the incomes after I had increased my hours to 20 and ex reduced his to 20.

Result, ex would have additional costs of keeping his chilren half the week on £60+ a week less than he has currently. Also he would have to pay for half of all their other costs (clothes, trips etc).

Poor me would lose a whopping £9pw. Still, with a saving on gas/elec food and getting half of the direct costs I could buy loads of new handbags and shoes :j




The NRP gets no WTC. The resident does - even though may not have full access


You think 6/7 is a pittance compared to 1/7? Back to school for you.

The NRP claims nothing. The RP claims and takes everything they possibly can using the children as a weapon and the law is in their court.


doesn't depend on shared costs at all. if the resident parent won't send over clothes that the NRP has paid for in maintenance the NRP has to pay out again twice over.


Calculation is not "carp" it's based on fact.


What is theis saving on gas/elec when you don't habve the children? Do you sit in the dark with all the heating off?
Adding a few more bodies hardly impacts essential sevice costs other than hot water for washing - negligible. Same with food, adding an extra mouth does not double the costs.