Can anyone explain the % for children in the household

t12ena

We have an arrears arrangement only for my step-daughter (on cs1). The ex wife put a departure against me (new wife), as being able to contribute to the household. Step-daughter now lives with us, so new case will be on cs2. The ex wife has 2 other children with different fathers. She receives maintenenace for 1 child, and she lives with the second childs father. So, why for the second child who's father lives with her, is she allowed a percentage for looking after her? Her partner contributes to the first child as he lives with them, and as there is no 'departures' on cs2, she seems to win both ways. Also, why is the 20% from her net pay which is taken off for her having 2 children with her, taken from the total of her net pay. This again reduces the % which my step-daugther would be entitled to, as her 15% will come off of only the 80%of her top net pay. It seems that children which live with her are more important than the one which had to leave her mother, becuase of her mother's partners behaviour. Can anyone explain please? Hope it's not too confusing to understand.

shell_542

What you've described is all correct. Unfortunately it's just what happens with the two different systems running simultaneously. If you're being penalised on the CS1 case but have a CS2 case running as well for yourself then it looks unfair as the two families are being treated differently. But there's not much you can do about it unfortunately.

The reason she gets a reduction for the child living with her and the father is that the father isn't expected to cover all costs for the child. She will contribute herself so gets a reduction.

CS3 is the new system coming into action in the coming years. This will be a slightly lower percentage taken from GROSS pay, so before deductions. It also appears (to me when doing some investigations) that this gross pay system will mean paying more than on CS2 with the same circumstances. Then there will be 3 different systems running where people are worse off or better off.

kelloggs36

t12ena wrote: »

We have an arrears arrangement only for my step-daughter (on cs1). The ex wife put a departure against me (new wife), as being able to contribute to the household. Step-daughter now lives with us, so new case will be on cs2. The ex wife has 2 other children with different fathers. She receives maintenenace for 1 child, and she lives with the second childs father. So, why for the second child who's father lives with her, is she allowed a percentage for looking after her?You could ask the same question when NRPs get a reduction for step children - they aren't responsible for them but still get the reduction. Her partner contributes to the first child as he lives with them, and as there is no 'departures' on cs2, she seems to win both ways. If you were on CS2 also, so would you get the same reduction if it were the other way round. Also, why is the 20% from her net pay which is taken off for her having 2 children with her, taken from the total of her net pay. Because this is how it works. This again reduces the % which my step-daugther would be entitled to, as her 15% will come off of only the 80%of her top net pay.Absolutely correct. It seems that children which live with her are more important than the one which had to leave her mother, becuase of her mother's partners behaviour. Switch it round and see how many PWCs feel when NRPs get reductions for step children - they are deemed more important than their own children. Can anyone explain please? Hope it's not too confusing to understand.

Afraid it is entirely correct.

t12ena

But why does the % for the children living with her, get a bigger % from the top of her total net pay? The child which has left gets a smaller %. Are the children who live with her more important than the one which has left?

DUTR

t12ena wrote: »

But why does the % for the children living with her, get a bigger % from the top of her total net pay? The child which has left gets a smaller %. Are the children who live with her more important than the one which has left?

Obviously and that is logical, folk concern themselves with people immediately in there lives before others that live.You care more about those under your roof than those under somebody else's and so does your ex.

kelloggs36

t12ena wrote: »

But why does the % for the children living with her, get a bigger % from the top of her total net pay? The child which has left gets a smaller %. Are the children who live with her more important than the one which has left?

Ask the legislators!