csa liars

Loopy_Girl

But if a PWCP and a PWC are living together then it's unavoidable that the PWCP will contribute to the children isn't it?

And it's rather telling on here that you never get a PWCP moaning that they have to contribute to the PWC kids. There are plenty (mostly female) NRPP who complain about it and for once, I really think the male species (which generally most, but not all granted, are PWCP) have the more screwed on head. They see a woman who has kids and makes the decision to move in with her knowing that he will need to ake on financial and most likely some emotional responsibility for the kids. It's a shame that some NRPP's can't have this mindset and, as it has been said before and is very true, anyone - male or female - can walk away from the first date thinking "sod that, they've got kids and I'm not wanting my money/time/food whatever going to them"

No one has a gun in their back forcing them to be a NRPP or a PWCP and everyone nowadays is aware that children from previous relationships should be first priority, not the last.

worried09

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

But if a PWCP and a PWC are living together then it's unavoidable that the PWCP will contribute to the children isn't it?

And it's rather telling on here that you never get a PWCP moaning that they have to contribute to the PWC kids. There are plenty (mostly female) NRPP who complain about it and for once, I really think the male species (which generally most, but not all granted, are PWCP) have the more screwed on head. They see a woman who has kids and makes the decision to move in with her knowing that he will need to ake on financial and most likely some emotional responsibility for the kids. It's a shame that some NRPP's can't have this mindset and, as it has been said before and is very true, anyone - male or female - can walk away from the first date thinking "sod that, they've got kids and I'm not wanting my money/time/food whatever going to them"

No one has a gun in their back forcing them to be a NRPP or a PWCP and everyone nowadays is aware that children from previous relationships should be first priority, not the last.

As much as I see your point and know that in the majority of situations this is the case, everyones circumstances are different.

When my husband and I met, got married and had children as far as we were BOTH concerned there were no other children other than our own...only for a one night stand and a child to turn up 9 years later. Didnt think to mention the birth of this child before but suddenly decided then would be a good time.

Do you think its therefore fair that my tax credits for my our children should be taken?? Cos I don't but its still the way it works.

Neither of us were aware of this childs existence so we didnt go in to this knowing what was to come.

chriszzz

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

But if a PWCP and a PWC are living together then it's unavoidable that the PWCP will contribute to the children isn't it?
Thats correct, the pwcp contribute to the household income, and the nrp also pay csa into that household income, so i dont know where they come off thinking children live in poverty.
And it's rather telling on here that you never get a PWCP moaning that they have to contribute to the PWC kids. and these are mostly males who not only contribute to their ex household they also contribute to the new partners household.There are plenty (mostly female) NRPP who complain about it and for once, I really think the male species (which generally most, but not all granted, are PWCP) have the more screwed on head. They see a woman who has kids and makes the decision to move in with her knowing that he will need to ake on financial and most likely some emotional responsibility for the kids. It's a shame that some NRPP's can't have this mindset and, as it has been said before and is very true, anyone - male or female - can walk away from the first date thinking "sod that, they've got kids and I'm not wanting my money/time/food whatever going to them"
I think the way it is today it would be hard for any divorcee and mostly nrp, who would have difficulty trying to spread there money into two homes
No one has a gun in their back forcing them to be a NRPP or a PWCP and everyone nowadays is aware that children from previous relationships should be first priority, not the last.

Dont agree with this last statement, all children should be priority!! first children are no more special than (so called) 2nd children!!

chriszzz

worried09 wrote: »

As much as I see your point and know that in the majority of situations this is the case, everyones circumstances are different.

When my husband and I met, got married and had children as far as we were BOTH concerned there were no other children other than our own...only for a one night stand and a child to turn up 9 years later. Didnt think to mention the birth of this child before but suddenly decided then would be a good time.

Do you think its therefore fair that my tax credits for my our children should be taken?? Cos I don't but its still the way it works.

Neither of us were aware of this childs existence so we didnt go in to this knowing what was to come.

I dont think its fair that a pwc after 9 years can just step forward and the nrp has to pay arrears for the 9 missing years, I wonder how much you are going to get hit with? and will they want the arrears paid over two years?

There should be a seperate law about dealing with situations like this, but thats ok with this government pwc can do and say what they will and everybody has to sit up and listen.

This must of been a total shock for you all :eek:

worried09

He doesnt have to pay 9 years of arrears thankfully as the assesment only starts from when she made a claim not when the child was born.

I just think sometimes that everyone thinks that all NRP's are them same and its not always the case. My husband didnt abandon this woman and child and take up with me and then decide to have children which he couldnt afford on is income. He decided to have children with his wife and was then told he also has to pay for a child he knew nothing about (which he doesnt begrudge) but for my tax credits for our children to be taken into account seems unfair. We both work full time I dont really see why I should take a second job to pay for another child.

And really I dont think you should be able to leave it that amount of time and then make a claim as the information she has to make the calim now she also had then so theres no excuse but thats another issue.

Loopy_Girl

chriszzz wrote: »

Dont agree with this last statement, all children should be priority!! first children are no more special than (so called) 2nd children!!

Agreed to a certain degree. Sadly it seems though - and all too common on here - that the CSA get blamed for debt or 'poverty' etc. Why is it the CSA that cause debt? And not the mortgage company, or gas company or Asda? Why is it that the CS payments seem to be an afterthought...that's what I meant by being a priority. Just like your mortgage/rent is seen as a priority 'bill' then so should CS and not seen as something that might be able to be paid.

DX2

worried09 wrote: »

He doesnt have to pay 9 years of arrears thankfully as the assesment only starts from when she made a claim not when the child was born.

I just think sometimes that everyone thinks that all NRP's are them same and its not always the case. My husband didnt abandon this woman and child and take up with me and then decide to have children which he couldnt afford on is income. He decided to have children with his wife and was then told he also has to pay for a child he knew nothing about (which he doesnt begrudge) but for my tax credits for our children to be taken into account seems unfair. We both work full time I dont really see why I should take a second job to pay for another child.

And really I dont think you should be able to leave it that amount of time and then make a claim as the information she has to make the calim now she also had then so theres no excuse but thats another issue.

Flip the coin on the other side and see that he hasn't paid child support for 9 years. Maybe for the last 9 years the pwc was managing herself and didn't need any help from the NRP, but now maybe she has lost her job or something along those lines.

chriszzz

worried09 wrote: »

He doesnt have to pay 9 years of arrears thankfully as the assesment only starts from when she made a claim not when the child was born. I bet that is a relief? some posters have been threatened with sale of house to pay off arrears!!

I just think sometimes that everyone thinks that all NRP's are them same and its not always the case. I think sometimes its quite biased against some!! My husband didnt abandon this woman and child and take up with me and then decide to have children which he couldnt afford on is income. He decided to have children with his wife and was then told he also has to pay for a child he knew nothing about (which he doesnt begrudge) but for my tax credits for our children to be taken into account seems unfair. Its obvious that he will pay csa but from an earlier post they only use your income so that he does not have to pay the higher rate and in accordance with his protected income, there will be someone on here who is clued up on the csa who will be able to give you futher advice if you need it.We both work full time I dont really see why I should take a second job to pay for another child. I agree, you shouldnt have to get a second job, if you dont mind me asking, why do you need to get 2nd job?

And really I dont think you should be able to leave it that amount of time and then make a claim as the information she has to make the calim now she also had then so theres no excuse but thats another issue.

At least thats one good thing about the csa, is that they only take the claim from the date the pwc has involved them, but doesnt it just tell you something else, that some pwc can have children, not let the father know and deprive father and child of a relationship and yet when they feel like it or need money they get in touch with csa and all of a sudden want money off nrp, not interested in the fact that the child has a dad and vice versa, bluuudy shame!!!

chriszzz

DX2 wrote: »

Flip the coin on the other side and see that he hasn't paid child support for 9 years. Maybe for the last 9 years the pwc was managing herself and didn't need any help from the NRP, but now maybe she has lost her job or something along those lines.

Thats really good!! flip the coin and she was managing on her own for 9 years, Is that all that matters here, that she may need some money??

What about the child and father?? Dont they matter?/ or is just about the money??

Like i said in a earlier post doesnt matter what a pwc does or say as long as she gets the money, thats the only important thing for some, never mind how the effect this has had on two human beings.

worried09

DX2 wrote: »

Flip the coin on the other side and see that he hasn't paid child support for 9 years. Maybe for the last 9 years the pwc was managing herself and didn't need any help from the NRP, but now maybe she has lost her job or something along those lines.

Yes, but the ONLY reason he hasnt paid child support is because he didnt know there was a child. Even if she wanted to manage her self financially do you not think it might of been courteous to let him know he had a child not just spring it on him one day as you need some extra money?