Joint custody / CM payments

Blonde_Bint

:eek: bare faced cheek of it,

stupid b*^ùh I hope shes destitute:mad: shes obviously given it much thought to mention it though hasnt she. . she will probably give you hell on earth for your last year or so though, her final squeeze on the cash cow:D

Dancing_Shoes

Blonde_Bint wrote: »

:eek: bare faced cheek of it,

stupid b*^ùh I hope shes destitute:mad: shes obviously given it much thought to mention it though hasnt she. . she will probably give you hell on earth for your last year or so though, her final squeeze on the cash cow:D

You just know how much I am going to enjoy giving her her last EVER payment from us.;)

Although i'm not completely heartless and will send her the biggest cardboard box I can for her to live in so she's not too cramped:rotfl::rotfl:

maggied_2

OK....well just 10 years to go!

I think OH is going to leave things as they are while the legal stuff goes through and then pay the proper amount with no extras once it's sorted - if we've anything left by then :rolleyes2

LizzieS_2

I'm split on this one as I can see different scenarios.

The one I guess the system is based on is:

Neither pwc or nrp have a partner at split. Both share care in number of nights of a young school age child. One parent works full-time, the other part-time. (going to use the stereotypical route of man working full-time now and being the higher earner on a hourly rate for ease of posting - reverse the roles where appropriate). Man can collect child from school but his income would be less as he would work less hours (possibly having to take a lower hourly paid job). Womans hours allow her to collect child the full 5 days, but obviously she is limited to the earnings and type of job. In this scenario, both are helping each other - one financially paying while the other avoiding the first from paying childcare costs.

But, I can also see that not everyone will fit that type of scenario and can do everything themselves (excluding partners as that complicates matters).

maggied_2

Hi Lizzy

I can see where you're coming from. However in our situation X has a 7 yo and 4yo in full time school / nursery. She chooses to work 30 hours a week and uses a mixture of nursery and different grandparents for afterschool care. She goes to the gym 5 nights a week while the children are being looked after.

She has a decent sized house with a big garden in a nice area which she gets help with paying.
She receives help with paying for childcare.
She receives all child benefit
She receives all tax credits
She'll receive legal aid to help her fight my OH seeing his daughter

Don't get me wrong - I'd rather be on the bones of my ar*e than be her but there does seem to be a rather huge imbalance.

Steve40_2

I just copied the following statements from the new rules on the csa website where it clearly states a reduction of 1 7th per night here is the actual paragraph copied and pasted

Q. Does the Child Support Agency (CSA) take into account times when the children stay with the parent they don't normally live with?

A. Yes. The CSA takes into account 'shared care' of children when calculating child maintenance. We reduce the amount depending on how many nights a year a child spends with each parent.
For cases on the current child maintenance scheme we reduce the amount of maintenance by one seventh for each night of the week that the child stays with the non-resident parent.

LizzieS_2

maggied wrote: »

Hi Lizzy

I can see where you're coming from. However in our situation X has a 7 yo and 4yo in full time school / nursery. She chooses to work 30 hours a week and uses a mixture of nursery and different grandparents for afterschool care. She goes to the gym 5 nights a week while the children are being looked after.

She has a decent sized house with a big in a nice area which she gets help with paying.
She receives help with paying for childcare.
She receives all child benefit
She receives all tax credits
She'll receive legal aid to help her fight my OH seeing his daughter

Don't get me wrong - I'd rather be on the bones of my ar*e than be her but there does seem to be a rather huge imbalance.

I see nothing wrong with her working - think of it the other way, would you like her to be on benefits and asking for even more help?

As she does work, the house must be rented. Depending on her income she could get some help with the rent (likely not to be much).

For childcare, she will pay more out than the help she gets (assuming she gets the maximum, she will still have to pay 20% herself) Although it appears she is using childcare for gym time, it could be that she has used up all her free childcare offers from family. I doubt a judge would take a dim view as she is entitled to personal time, just as you 2 are (although personally I would take that time when the children are not in my care).

Child benefit and tax credits will supplement her income, I agree.

Not sure on the legal aid these days (all I know is I never qualified when I needed legal help due to working).

I can understand you seeing what she has, but I also know it is likely she is coming up with similiar ideas of you 2. I suppose the best quote is "the grass always appears greener on the other side" Sometimes it is, sometimes when everything is given by 2 opposing parties it isn't.

In non-shared care, the csa is not used by a lot of separated couples - these find some common ground themselves to decide what to do. Even when csa is used, there are mountains of disputes (many on here). Shared care becomes more complicated when both parents cannot agree as there is more to consider.

I've never seen a shared care case in real life where there is huge disputes over who pays for what. As you are going to court anyway, maybe it would be better to force a court agreement (will hold the csa at bay providing you keep the order reviewed annually). I would imagine the court will look at the full financial circumstances of each parent (beware here though that although she may get help with her rent, you may be deemed capable of providing part of your housing costs) and decide either a fixed amount, or say what each parent pays for.

maggied_2

Hi Lizzie

Thanks for your reply - I wasn't just trying to have a go just lay out the circumstances.

I have no problem with her working at all - I think she should - I was saying she keeps her hours low - she could work fulltime quite easily as she clearly doesn't have to work part time for childcare reasons.

I absolutely think she is entitled to personal time. However flipping it round a bit....I know a couple who are struggling because husband has had to take a huge paycut due to being made redundant. They can't afford to put their children in childcare as they get no help and so have had to beg from family, wife has had to go back to work fulltime when her youngest is 2 yo and they have no money for extras at all. Certainly not luxuries like a gym membership.

Also is OH's family who provide most of the childcare as she's blackmailed OH's mum into taking it on on the basis that "if you don't pick up DD from school after xx class she won't be able to go".

I don't think she 'has' a great deal. In fact the reason she is so difficult is being I 'have' what she wants - a future with my OH.

I just think it's a bit rich for her to hold all the cards and get help with it just because she wants to be difficult.

I hope that anything I earn would not be taken into account when deciding how much maintenance she would get - sorry to be horrible but I got an education so I could have a decent job - she trapped my OH into fatherhood and has had her hand held out ever since.

(Disclaimer! - my OH loves being a dad and has no regrets at all about having DD, who I also adore. However she was 'on the pill' and at the time couldn't even tell OH that he was definitely the father....she hasn't done too badly by him).

Steve40_2

maggied wrote: »

Hi Lizzie

Thanks for your reply - I wasn't just trying to have a go just lay out the circumstances.

I have no problem with her working at all - I think she should - I was saying she keeps her hours low - she could work fulltime quite easily as she clearly doesn't have to work part time for childcare reasons.

I absolutely think she is entitled to personal time. However flipping it round a bit....I know a couple who are struggling because husband has had to take a huge paycut due to being made redundant. They can't afford to put their children in childcare as they get no help and so have had to beg from family, wife has had to go back to work fulltime when her youngest is 2 yo and they have no money for extras at all. Certainly not luxuries like a gym membership.

Also is OH's family who provide most of the childcare as she's blackmailed OH's mum into taking it on on the basis that "if you don't pick up DD from school after xx class she won't be able to go".

I don't think she 'has' a great deal. In fact the reason she is so difficult is being I 'have' what she wants - a future with my OH.

I just think it's a bit rich for her to hold all the cards and get help with it just because she wants to be difficult.

I hope that anything I earn would not be taken into account when deciding how much maintenance she would get - sorry to be horrible but I got an education so I could have a decent job - she trapped my OH into fatherhood and has had her hand held out ever since.

(Disclaimer! - my OH loves being a dad and has no regrets at all about having DD, who I also adore. However she was 'on the pill' and at the time couldn't even tell OH that he was definitely the father....she hasn't done too badly by him).

Sorry to butt in but there are thousands of women doing the same thing i actually know of some women who under there own confession have purposely gone out to get pregnant by 3or4 different men (with no intention of holding down a stable relationship) so that they can secure themselves a comfortable lifestyle and not have to work a day for it . This is where the legislation fails it is nothing more than utilising a government agency to commit deception.

LizzieS_2

Ok I’ll ramble a few thoughts out, hope at least some helps.
I have seen instances in the past (on forums) where parents have reached the stage of each having their own set of clothes for the child and only letting child wear them at their house. As much as I can see how that type of thing happens, as an outsider I look at it as if I was the child – I would hate not being able to show off all my clothes to my friends at each house (unless you live very close, there will always be a few friends near each house and some best friends they will see at both), feel as if I were 2 different people, feel like my parents preferred to use me for their arguments with each other etc.

I don’t particularly see the above happening in your own situation currently, but I have a feeling that it could happen.

Sticking with the clothes, there then could be differences in what type of clothes worn at each house. There is the possibility of 2 extremes – one house is designer, the other Primark. Where the child has friends they see at both houses, those friends will remark on clothing differences (children are like that). Again in that position myself I would feel like I had been forced 2 personalities.

The child wants continuity in how they view themselves and how they perceive friends view them. This then comes down to parents not squabbling and being able to finance whichever type of clothes bought. Children are not particularly interested in who pays for what – parents are.

To give a balance to the child so both parents are able to keep the clothing issue consistent (obviously it will be more than just clothes in reality), courts look at financial abilities of both parents to meet the child’s needs. Your husband’s ex will have her earnings, tax credits, childcare costs, housing benefit, housing costs, child benefit taken into account to reach a net figure. Your husband will have his earnings, housing costs to reach a net figure (on this one the court can take a lesser % of costs as he doesn’t live alone). Overall the 2 figures are unlikely to match, so for the benefit of the child, the court would apportion a greater cost on one parent or the other. The apportionment could be a direct payment, or it could be a list of what each parent must buy. Of course it would cost thousands to go into such detail in court, so it is a matter of trying to negotiate outside court if you can.

As I said, I don’t know if his ex will qualify for legal aid. Even if she does, it possibly wouldn’t be 100% of costs. I can understand your reasoning at sending a letter via solicitors, but I think you could have tried differently first. If you receive a solicitors letter, odds are you will feel intimidated by the knowledge of a solicitor to the point of feeling too inferior to correspond with some-one of greater knowledge – you are more likely to consult a solicitor yourself (costs then begin spiralling). In hindsight, I would consult a solicitor, but I would send the first letter myself by recorded delivery – to the recipient it then looks like a more level playing field rather than intimidating by power. Also, you can use it in court to say you tried at every opportunity to discuss this as 2 adults without voluntarily taking the solicitor route (in other words you were forced into using solicitors by lack of effort by other party).

Easy to say now, but these disputes should never arise as they should be sorted at the point of agreeing shared care. I’ve no idea how long this has been going on, but I can guess she will say it was agreed until you met him. For that reason, I would say it is best that you let your husband deal with her to avoid fuelling any thoughts.

As an outsider I do feel sorry for the child in this – the current arrangements leave them as moving far more than is necessary. Personally I would go for a set week or fortnight which involves the minimum number of moves for the child, eg each have 3 or 4 continuous nights with one being either a Friday or Saturday. This would also enable the school to have an easier way of identifying which parent to contact if the child is ill (in a good situation, both parents would be happy to use a bit of give and take, eg one parent may do all the running around for this and dentist/doctors while the other contributes more).

For childcare, think about what help you may need if you were given certain days of the week – you can bet she will press for the days that suit you least and have good reasons over her own childcare. Personally I think childcare should be claimed by the lower earning household as that gives the greatest return for all (assuming agreement is reached privately or via court as to who pays what).