csa help please!!!

chall1964

alwayspuzzled wrote: »

I agree there are two sides to everything but I believe that PWCs who do not agree/understand a deduction based on future children/step children in the nrp household must believe that the nrp has no right to a future life after their relationship ends.

With the current system, there are some NRP and PWC that benefit from the legislation and those that don't.
Personally, I don't feel that putting the onus on the other to suit ones purpose is perhaps the most suitable/effective solution.

Perhaps a fairer system would ensure, neither should be included for either - could save a lot of bad feeling on both sides.

AnxiousMum

I know my ex is upset as he now has a step son, and has in the last year had a daughter with his current partner. Unfortunately, the laws governing our child support order in Canada don't take that into account. They really do consider the fact that existing children are entitled to live in the lifestyle provided by the two parents. They don't consider new children in a family, and consider the fact that the parents already have so many to support, and if they cannot afford more, then don't have them. Maybe it's harsh......but when you think about it - as a couple if you have three children and decide you can't afford more, then you don't have them. But, if you have three children, split, you then can afford more? I guess there's two ways to look at it.

kelloggs36

I agree - it never ceases to amaze me when people start complaining that they can't afford to pay for children who live with the other parent because they have chosen to have more children. I feel for those who may not have known about the children they had but for those who move on and have more children, it is surely common sense to factor in the costs of their existing children to the decision to whether they can afford to have more?

mztoxic

Unfortunately life isn't always just black and white ,i had two children from a previous relationship when i met my partner ,we had a child together when we were both in full time jobs and were living pretty comfortably, my partner was able to afford cm for his son quite easily .
Like i explained before it was not until ill health on my part changed all of this , neither my partner or i were too know that i would suffer from health problems and be in and out of hospital
We planned our child when we were both in a good financial position,I dont think everyone can be tarred with the same brush in these situations

moomoomama27

kelloggs36 wrote: »

I agree - it never ceases to amaze me when people start complaining that they can't afford to pay for children who live with the other parent because they have chosen to have more children. I feel for those who may not have known about the children they had but for those who move on and have more children, it is surely common sense to factor in the costs of their existing children to the decision to whether they can afford to have more?

Thats a bit of a blanket statement Kelloggs. I think you need to appreciate that there are many variables that can quickly change ones finacial position.

kelloggs36

Of course there are, but there are also many cases where the NRPs have not thought about the financial implications of having new children, stating it as their right to do so - nobody has a fundamental right to have children, it is a choice really, but forgets the rights of the children who already exist.

daska

Ditto, both my sons were conceived when I was working and healthy and could reasonably expect to support them. I am always thankful that there is a support system in this country now that my situation has changed (though that doesn't mean I always agree with how it is implemented LOL).

It does seem that some people fail to understand that it is impossible to have any rights if no one takes on the corresponding responsibilities.

RedSky

What about the situation where an individual has fully thought through the financial implications and responsibilities, and determined that they are not able to provide and support an acceptable upbringing for a new child (which maybe due to the suffering it will cause existing children).

If an NRP discovers 10 years later they have a child they did not know about, should they be given the right to decide that the additional responsibilities and implications are too much and choose not to cause suffering to the new child and past children?

LizzieS_2

mztoxic wrote: »

In the letter it states that my partner will be paying £39 per week csa
But it also states that they deduct £80 per week from our income for our three children so therefore they are saying that my OH's son needs £39 per week yet my 3 children only need £80 per week between them ..Doesnt seem to be any logic there at all!!!!

Perhaps it will help if I explain how the £80 deduction is made up?

For one child, either living with your partner or your partner is paying towards, the amount used is 15%

For 2 children it is 20%

For 3 children it is 25%

That translates as:

Your partners son gets £39 per week

For your eldest your partner gets a reduction of £48 per week

For your youngest 2, your partner gets a reduction of £16 per child

Why one child in a nrp costs more than a child in pwc household based solely on one income, and why 2nd etc children cost less, is a mystery known only to those who created the percentages in the first place.

LizzieS_2

RedSky wrote: »

What about the situation where an individual has fully thought through the financial implications and responsibilities, and determined that they are not able to provide and support an acceptable upbringing for a new child (which maybe due to the suffering it will cause existing children).

If an NRP discovers 10 years later they have a child they did not know about, should they be given the right to decide that the additional responsibilities and implications are too much and choose not to cause suffering to the new child and past children?

10 years may give hope all historical encounters have not resulted in a child, but unless you stuck something on the end of it and kept distant tabs on your previous encounters for 9 months after, there is always a risk factor to put into financial plans.