Why is there no provision for true 50/50

speedster

are wages considerably different?

if wages of both party's are similar then claims will counter each other. big wage differences will hike up payments for the higher earner.

Auntyem

Yes very much so. One calculates at nominal £5 per week, one at £55.

speedster

pretty much stuffed then really.

if you are paye with a half decent wage, they are gonna hammer you i'm afraid.

SE or LTD lowers assessable income and levels the playing field, but these options are not open to all.

Found_true_love

speedster wrote: »

pretty much stuffed then really.

if you are paye with a half decent wage, they are gonna hammer you i'm afraid.

SE or LTD lowers assessable income and levels the playing field, but these options are not open to all.

Just an opinion, the system seems to, on the one hand, encourage parent participation (i.e. the argument about "absent fathers" not taking a hand in the upbringing of the children) but on the other stuffs it right up.

1 - wimmin (those that dont act in the best iinterest of the child) are allowed to resist any increase in overnight contact via a court system that weighs too heavily on thier (wimmin) opinion of what is in the best interest of the child.

2 Then, having secured limited overnight contact, make applications to the CSA forcing the father (normally) to make maintenance payments due to the mother looking after the child the majority of the time!

3 Oh and the more he earns the better off she becomes, its like a stealth tax for wimmin

4 Its another matter if the father has no desire to see his child(ren), then the system that is set up is ok and CSA 2 is better than CSA1, dealing with the true "absent" father

Have i missed something here?

Auntyem

I have to agree with you, Found True Love.

LizzieS_2

In answer to the thread title, there is and always has been proper provision for shared care. Too many are focusing on who qualifies for CB, TC & CSA and are missing the full picture.

There are a number of circumstances where say the mother should receive all the benefits, and there a number of others where although the claim is valid the net result gives an unfair income advantage to mother. The only place that can truely judge each individual circumstance and make a fair ruling is the court.

In order to involve a court, you have to have the correct paperwork in force - if you have a proper shared care arrangement, you should have made an application for a residence order. The court can make a shared residence order under section 11(4) of the childrens act.

Providing you follow the system correctly, the shared residence order gives you automatic entitlement to apply for maintenance from the parent deemed pwc (you cannot claim csa as such so can apply to the court for financial relief instead). The court will look at both parties full situations and make a decision whether the pwc should pay you something from her "income".

marksoton

LizzieS wrote: »

Providing you follow the system correctly, the shared residence order gives you automatic entitlement to apply for maintenance from the parent deemed pwc (you cannot claim csa as such so can apply to the court for financial relief instead). The court will look at both parties full situations and make a decision whether the pwc should pay you something from her "income".

But we have seen this before Lizzie and the courts are very reluctant to get involved. Their de facto position is to defer to the CSA. This generally puts the male straight back to square one and whoever is in receipt of the CB takes the spoils.

Time and again on these boards there has been cases of the CSA ignoring shared residence and contact orders.

The reality is there is no proper provision for true shared care.

Auntyem

LizzieS wrote: »

In order to involve a court, you have to have the correct paperwork in force - if you have a proper shared care arrangement, you should have made an application for a residence order. The court can make a shared residence order under section 11(4) of the childrens act.

Providing you follow the system correctly, the shared residence order gives you automatic entitlement to apply for maintenance from the parent deemed pwc (you cannot claim csa as such so can apply to the court for financial relief instead). The court will look at both parties full situations and make a decision whether the pwc should pay you something from her "income".

Lizzie I don't really understand your post. In my situation there is a shared residence order in place but the mother still claimed successfully from the CSA and was classed as PWC for a number of years. Then I found out (from reading here) that CB was an important factor (I am NRPP), so we informed the CSA of our CB situation. CB is split, one gets it for each child. Then they re-branded us as PWC for one child.

Tribunal in pipeline as surprise surprise the mother is appealing that decision. But thats another story.

marshmallows

If she continues to claim through the csa apply for the child benefit as long as you can prove you have the children 50% of the time
Then they should award you one, if they do not then appeal the decision until they award you one. That way although she can still claim maintenance for the child who she received child benefit for you can do the same

Make sure you apply for child benefit for both children though otherwise they may think you only have 1 child with your x even though you have claimed the child benefit before

Kimitatsu

marksoton wrote: »

But we have seen this before Lizzie and the courts are very reluctant to get involved. Their de facto position is to defer to the CSA. This generally puts the male straight back to square one and whoever is in receipt of the CB takes the spoils.

Time and again on these boards there has been cases of the CSA ignoring shared residence and contact orders.

The reality is there is no proper provision for true shared care.

This unfortunately is the truth of the matter. The courts routinely pass the matter off to the CSA even so far as maintenance agreements that they have previously enforced! The CSA can overturn those agreements with the courts blessing.

CB appears to be the key as the CSA then recognise that you are deemed the PWC of that child by another agency. CB also means that you can claim other benefits for that child.