CSA could cost me my career

Dancing_Shoes

Aphroditesgirdle wrote: »

Surely this is not her fault though? The CSA calculate how much is payable....

But she makes the choice to use the CSA:rolleyes:

Also she is claiming money but not allowing contact....she sounds like a really good parent;)

Dancing_Shoes

DX2 wrote: »

:T Exactly!
£650 per month does sound an awful lot but we have no infomation as to whether the OP has any arrears, and since the CSA aren't allowed to contact anyone on active duty then he has probably come home to it all.

Didn't realise the army was so easy to get out of these days either :rolleyes:

If he has arrears then obviously the figure would be more understandable but to double is crazy, if you were in the nrp's shoes with no arrears you would just think this was reasonable?

Loopy_Girl

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

But she makes the choice to use the CSA:rolleyes:

Also she is claiming money but not allowing contact....she sounds like a really good parent;)

How can you POSSIBLY comment on what kind of parent she is? We are getting one side of the story here - how do we know what kind of partner he was? Maybe she is witholding contact for a very viable reason such as safety for her or her child...or whatever, I don't know and you certainly don't know either...not all PWC are vindictive although your view is clearly clouded and judged by the one in your life.

And yes, she has every right to use the CSA

DX2

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

If he has arrears then obviously the figure would be more understandable but to double is crazy, if you were in the nrp's shoes with no arrears you would just think this was reasonable?

We can speculate for hours on end but I think it's best to wait until the OP comes back and let's us all know the situation.

Dancing_Shoes

DX2 wrote: »

We can speculate for hours on end but I think it's best to wait until the OP comes back and let's us all know the situation.

Yes I agree:D

Dancing_Shoes

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

How can you POSSIBLY comment on what kind of parent she is? We are getting one side of the story here - how do we know what kind of partner he was? Maybe she is witholding contact for a very viable reason such as safety for her or her child...or whatever, I don't know and you certainly don't know either...not all PWC are vindictive although your view is clearly clouded and judged by the one in your life. Yes you are right but everyone has a view and it is mostly driven by what has happened in our lives. I should have added that genuine concerns for safety of the child is the only reason to with hold contact any other reason is not right!

And yes, she has every right to use the CSA

Of course she has every right to use the csa but if you were on csa1 and you knew that you would take a "pay cut" if you moved on to csa2 and you deliberately stayed on csa1 knowing the payments were very high and crippling the nrp then that is the definition of a money grabber. Child maintenance should be about people facing up to their responsibilities financially for their child/ren not about getting the most you can from an nrp

dmg24

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

But she makes the choice to use the CSA:rolleyes:

Also she is claiming money but not allowing contact....she sounds like a really good parent;)

You sound incredibly bitter Dancing Shoes. Perhaps you are venting your own frustrations on someone elses situation?

KimYeovil

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

If he has arrears then obviously the figure would be more understandable but to double is crazy, if you were in the nrp's shoes with no arrears you would just think this was reasonable?

But that is what the figures are set at. When the OP was still in a couple he benefited from the same generosity. If his income is as low as he suggests the working tax and child credits for the family group would be enormous. If you are single you are expected to live on nothing. At least it is his child who he is having to pay for.

Loopy_Girl

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

Of course she has every right to use the csa but if you were on csa1 and you knew that you would take a "pay cut" if you moved on to csa2 and you deliberately stayed on csa1 knowing the payments were very high and crippling the nrp then that is the definition of a money grabber. Child maintenance should be about people facing up to their responsibilities financially for their child/ren not about getting the most you can from an nrp

How will she know that they are 'crippling' them? According to the OP there is no contact. The PWC could therefore assume that the new figure would be based on his calculation made by the CSA.

KimYeovil

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

Of course she has every right to use the csa but if you were on csa1 and you knew that you would take a "pay cut" if you moved on to csa2 and you deliberately stayed on csa1 knowing the payments were very high and crippling the nrp then that is the definition of a money grabber. Child maintenance should be about people facing up to their responsibilities financially for their child/ren not about getting the most you can from an nrp

So who should the money come from? Neither of the parents? The nrp should keep their money and expect others to pay for their children?

The OP has £850 per month left. In what way is that remotely crippling? If the OP had higher or any housing costs then that would be appropriately reflected. It's not as if the RP pockets the money in addition to other dues.