Help Please! CSA are going to destroy my family!

sulkisu

13Kent wrote: »

I would stay well away from a private agreement with her - if you give her money privately and she still goes to the CSA and tells them you have given her nothing in our experience the CSA will believe her, and you will end up with an even higher arrears bill.

I couldnt agree more.

OP, I also think that fabforty makes a really importnt point - that your anger is misdirected. I'm not saying that your husbands ex has behaved well at all times - no doubt she has been a pain, but on the issue of accepting a reduced child support payment, I think that her refusal is understandable. Even the most reasonable PWC would object to child support payments being reduced if the reason behind the reduction is that the child's father is struggling financially because a) he and his new partner have decided to increase their family and new partner has stopped working as a result and b)he is effectively supporting another man's child while the father of that child pays next to nothing.

You asked for advice and my advice would be - forget private agreements with partners' ex. Ensure that OH assessment is accurate/that CSA have all relevant infomation and then you will have to find a way to make the payments. Look at ways of increasing your household income, part-time work for you and/or OH, return to work early, and chase csa for a realistic support payment for your daughter.

sulkisu

shell_542 wrote: »

ensure the CSA assessment is correct and it doesn't sound like it is. Make sure your 2 children living with you are included in the assessment and that should reduce the weekly payments a small amount. Not by much though I'm afraid.

Does this apply even though only one of the children is biologically his? Wouldn't they just make a deduction for one child? That seems so unfair. My partner's ex has 6 children (2 eldest are with my partner) with the 7th on the way - several biological fathers. The father of her latest child left his family to shack up with her. If I understand this correctly, his financial liability to his own children is reduced because of 6 other children who are not biolgically his and who (at least in the case of my partner's two) are also being financially supported by their own biological father(s).

DUTR

sulkisu wrote: »

Does this apply even though only one of the children is biologically his? Wouldn't they just make a deduction for one child? That seems so unfair. My partner's ex has 6 children (2 eldest are with my partner) with the 7th on the way - several biological fathers. The father of her latest child left his family to shack up with her. If I understand this correctly, his financial liability to his own children is reduced because of 6 other children who are not biolgically his and who (at least in the case of my partner's two) are also being financially supported by their own biological father(s).

Yes it does apply to all children living in the household, the limit is a reduction of 25% of liability, so it is no great amount.

kelloggs36

Under CS1 there was no reduction for non-bio children (they sound like washing powders lol) when liability was calculated, but there was when affordability was decided under protected income. With 7 children, that would have easily reduced any positive liability to nil.

shell_542

sulkisu wrote: »

Does this apply even though only one of the children is biologically his? Wouldn't they just make a deduction for one child? That seems so unfair. My partner's ex has 6 children (2 eldest are with my partner) with the 7th on the way - several biological fathers. The father of her latest child left his family to shack up with her. If I understand this correctly, his financial liability to his own children is reduced because of 6 other children who are not biolgically his and who (at least in the case of my partner's two) are also being financially supported by their own biological father(s).

It is correct. Like DUTR said though, the cap is 3 children at 25%, so if there are more than 3 children in the household, they will only ever reduce the liability by 25%.

Same as the NRP will only every pay 25% max no matter how many children they are paying for to the PWC (unless they are paying arrears)

Also, don't forget, that the CSA would take into account the money that the NRP and their partner get in the form of child tax credits for those 7 children as the NRP's income.

kelloggs36

Only if NRP was higher earner though - usually would be.

shell_542

kelloggs36 wrote: »

Only if NRP was higher earner though - usually would be.

That's only for working tax credits though, isn't it.

Child tax credits are always included, no matter who the higher earner is.

sulkisu

Thanks for clarifying. I should add that I am not seeking advice on my partners ex's situation, I was just using that example for illustration (I thought I'd better mention this otherwise OPs thread may go off course).

kelloggs36

That's right - child tax credits are always the NRP's.

bdt1

Can I clarify this please? I understand that on CS1, the child tax credits are considered as NRP assessable income if NRP is higher earner in household.

If NRP is lower earner in household then child tax credits are only used in protected income section of assessment.

Obvioulsy working tax credits are different, but I would like to please ask for confirmation of the situation with child tax credits only