Joint custody / CM payments

Dancing_Shoes

maggied wrote: »

Kellogs - so sorry if I've missed something - where does the £35 come from?

I still think it's a bit crackers that even if care is equally shared she will get child benefit, tax credits and a % of OH's salary.

It IS crackers, they say the the system is equal to both parties but it isn't:rolleyes:. Clearly this shows that the system is biased towards your oh's ex, shared care 50/50 should mean that NO child maintenance is paid. TWO people chose to have a child and they are splitting the care so NO-ONE should get child maintenance and the tax credits, child benefit should be split 50/50!!!
If your oh's ex is claiming maintenance then quite frankly she is a greedy vindictive bleep!:mad:

maggied_2

Greedy and vindictive is merely scratching the surface of her myriad negative qualities.
We've done the calcs and for the amount OH has been paying (factoring in the extras) he'd need to be earning an extra £10K per year if it had gone by CSA2 rules.
OH has DD 5 nights per fortnight and has approached X about shared custody before - her response? "Fine as long as it doesn't affect my money" - wish we had that in writing!

Bellio

dancing_shoes wrote: »

it is crackers, they say the the system is equal to both parties but it isn't:rolleyes:. Clearly this shows that the system is biased towards your oh's ex, shared care 50/50 should mean that no child maintenance is paid. Two people chose to have a child and they are splitting the care so no-one should get child maintenance and the tax credits, child benefit should be split 50/50!!!
If your oh's ex is claiming maintenance then quite frankly she is a greedy vindictive bleep!:mad:

well said !!!!!! :t:t:t:t:t

13Kent

maggied wrote: »

Greedy and vindictive is merely scratching the surface of her myriad negative qualities.
We've done the calcs and for the amount OH has been paying (factoring in the extras) he'd need to be earning an extra £10K per year if it had gone by CSA2 rules.
OH has DD 5 nights per fortnight and has approached X about shared custody before - her response? "Fine as long as it doesn't affect my money" - wish we had that in writing!

Even if you did have it in writing it wouldn't make a difference as the system is biased towards the Pwc

3onitsway

maggied wrote: »

Granted X pays for childcare although this is only 4 hours a week for SD. She finishes work at around 4 every day but then has her children (she has a son from another relationship) with various grandparents and nursery so she can go to the gym 5 nights a week - sorry having a dig but just meaning to say it's not absolutely necessary.

I don't see what other expenses she would incur by having SD for the same amount of time as OH.

At the risk of sounding really thick how does this work?

Surely if she's working and receiving tax credits, she can get a big % of childcare paid by tax credits!

I'd be tempted to pay her exactly what CSA calculator tells him, then he'll have spare cash to spend on his daughter.

BTW, how did it go at the solicitors?

maggied_2

3onitsway wrote: »

Surely if she's working and receiving tax credits, she can get a big % of childcare paid by tax credits!

I'd be tempted to pay her exactly what CSA calculator tells him, then he'll have spare cash to spend on his daughter.

BTW, how did it go at the solicitors?

I think he gets about 80% of her childcare paid -she can't be too hard up if she can pay for two children to be in nursery while she goes to the gym

I think he should just pay her what the calc says as well - thing is she's definitely going to kick off anyway when she receives this solicitor's letter so changing the CM may make things worse.

So - OH saw him yesterday. As he knows there's no way X will agree to anything just via solicitor's letter it's going to go straight to court for PR and CO. OH wants to apply for the extra night a week but thinks this will be rejected - we can only see. Solicitor said he couldn't see the court rejecting his request for PR plus contact how it is at the moment given how involved he already is with his DD.
He reckons it'll cost £700 if it gets agreed first time and up to about £5K if she contests it - and best of all she'll get legal aid to fight him :eek:

There goes the money towards a deposit for our own house :mad:

kelloggs36

The £35 was a figure I plucked from the air - IF the normal assessment would be £35, then it it were shared care it would be the figure I quoted.

Soubrette

Our society is simply not set up for shared care - one parent (the parent who claims child benefit) will be deemed the parent with care and the other the non resident parent. The PWC will be the one with the final say on things like schools, registering with GP etc.

The NRP will be the one that pays child maintenance.

However, with this payment comes an end to the money that the PWC can expect for extras. The NRP is certainly able to spend money on their child if they choose but they are equally entitled to say that they are not going to pass any more money to the child via the PWC.

Personally I feel both families should finance their own time with their children but anything extra such as school clothes should be financed with the child maintenance and benefit money, I suppose the only exception to this would be if the PWC is in extreme poverty in which case perhaps the NRP has a moral obligation to help the children more even if not a legal one.

Sou

maggied_2

Thanks for the replies everyone.

Kellogs - I was reading what you'd put incorrectly - thanks for clarifying.

I'd always thought that it was always women who were left bereft by absent fathers (and I know there are plenty who are left in the lurch) but fathers who want to be involved certainly seem to be penalised.

OH has no problem with supporting his daughter and as I've said he's been overpaying for quite sometime (his fault for taking the X at her word but never mind....)

It does seem odd though that:

If NRP has child 3 nights a week
PWC has child 4 nights a week

PWC only has 1 more night to provide for (day to day expenses-wise) and yet gets 'paid' for 4 nights. Plus also receives all the state support plus housing benefit - just seems a little unfair.

In our situation OH has the same expenses - providing a room for DD, rent, utilities, clothes for her, food etc etc. The only thing he doesn't pay for directly is childcare which as I've said X doesn't really need as she does finish work in time to collect her children from school - she just chooses not to. Odd.

Dancing_Shoes

Lost my whole post:mad:

Anyway, the system I understand but don't agree with. It is morally wrong for any pwc who has a 50% shared care with their ex to claim child maintenance. If you are paying child maintenance then don't pay ANYTHING else on top if you are looking after them half the time. If she sends them in one set of clothes then however much it grates you I would simply wash and dry them every night and NOT buy anymore;)

In a couple of years when our money stops our pwc will more than likely lose her home, car etc as our money pays for this and she has asked us recently if when this time comes we would still consider "helping" out......:rotfl::rotfl: sorry my reply was "GET A JOB THEN". Of course we won't be issuing a single penny after our end date whether she loses her house or not. People have to take responsibility for their own lives and not sponge off other people. I have worked very hard to have the security I have why should I subsidise her?