Is it worth going down the CSA route?

kelloggs36

but otherwise it is reducing the new partner's contribution - which should be nil anyway.

kinksfan

sorry Kellogs who is the new partner here, mine or hers?

clearingout

so basically you're saying she should live free of charge in her new husband's house with your children? she shouldn't have to contribute at all to the bills, food, utilites etc. etc? I don't think it's reasonable that you should expect another man to put a roof over your children's heads and pay for everything whilst you save money for your children, no. I do think it reasonable that if her life is easy now (and that's a value judgement none of us are really qualified to make), she considers other options with the child maintenance, yes. And I do think it more than reasonable that you don't have to pay anything whilst you're not working.

kinksfan

hi clearout, my point was redirecting the difference to a bank account eg if it was costing her say the full 400 per month to live in her independent house but it costs say £150 less per month to live in her husband's house ie she is contributing to all the costs but overall it is cheaper for both of them by living jointly, but it costs her specifically £150 per month less to exist at the same standard of living in the new house, then I am saying that this £150 should go to a special pot for the kids. So I am still contributing at a function of my income but some of it is going purely to the kids and not the larger household.

kelloggs36

I mean her new partner. However if NRP is not working then they can't pay - if NRP is working then their contribution should remain as it should for their income - her partner's income shouldn't offset the NRP contribution. It is swings and roundabouts. Basically, what I'm saying is that if the NRP circumstances are that they can't pay because they aren't working, then they can't pay, but if they can, they should and not rely on the PWC partner to pick up the tab. When the NRP isn't working through no fault of their own, then of course, the new partner will by default pick up the slack.

clearingout

I understand the 'difference' but how do you calculate that? there is no 'official' calculation of what it takes to raise a child (save for those terrifying 'it costs £100k to raise a child to 18' headlines you see in the Daily Mail) and it will vary depending on outgoings - more expensive to live in some areas than others, that's for sure. I just don't know how you could make this situation fair to both parties - and to new partners. Equally, if living as a couple is cheaper (I agree, it should be), perhaps there's now more money available for activities, clothing, holidays, laptops....all of which the children would benefit from, wouldn't they?

I do see your point. I just don't know how to make it work! Good luck with it. Your best bet is the CSA for a minimum assessment whilst you're not working.

FBaby

kingsfan, does your ex partner work? If not, why should her new husband contributes towards your children? He might be ok to support her, and as part of supporting her, supporting the part of her contribution towards her children (his choice), but he doesn't have to support your contribution. If your ex partner is better off financially from moving in with her new husband, surely it is right that the financial benefits of this should come back to her, not to you. If your partner suddenly earned the lottery, should your ex demand that you give more maintenance because you are better off as a result?

You should be paying 20% of what you earn, no more no less. If your income has gone down (genuinely, not after accountancy manipulation), then you should reduce maintenance accordingly (just like it should go up if your business picks up again). Your ex partner's situation should be irrelevant.

My ex partner seems to have the same consideration, although it is different in that he doesn't pay anything at all.... His paying maintenance has always been an issue, he never has money left to give etc... he used to feel a bit guilty about it (I am totally flexible with visits, he can see them when he wents, have them half day on christmas day, mornings of afternoons and have never gone to csa), but since I am with my partner, he seems to think that it relieves him from any maintenance and/or guilt because he is earning a good salary. The thing is, my partner doesn't pay towards my kids (I don't expect him to), and even though I am a bit better off from living together (reduction in mortgage and some bills), I still pay many £100s every month for the kids, to start with £250 a month morning and afterschool clubs so I can work full-time and contribute towards them, lunch vouchers, school trips, clothes, activities, presents for birthday parties, etc... all those things I pay totally on my own (and no tax credits and soon no CB either).

kinksfan

yes my ex partner does work. I guess clearout is right, it is hard to assess true costs but it would be good in my view to redirect the "extra" to a special pot for the kids so I am still providing 20% but some of this is building up for their future

kelloggs36

Whilst there is no legal responsiblity for a new partner to contribute towards children when they move in with a PWC, I personally find it rather mean if they don't! My husband accepted my daughter with my ex as part of the family and we pooled our money for the household which meant that by default, he paid for food etc for my daughter, as well as paying for childcare, clothes etc. The fact that we got no maintenance during this period meant that it was essential. When my ex was finally forced to pay, I feel that the money belongs to both my husband any myself as we both paid out in full for my daughter. If there is maintenance paid in, then it takes the pressure off the household as child costs are more affordable. I guess I find it difficult to understand why people who are partners would separate their finances so much as to 'yours and mine'.

FBaby

kinksfan wrote: »

yes my ex partner does work. I guess clearout is right, it is hard to assess true costs but it would be good in my view to redirect the "extra" to a special pot for the kids so I am still providing 20% but some of this is building up for their future

The 20% should be provided no matter what, anything above that can be put aside. Unfortunately, the law protects pwc in that they don't have to be accountable for how they spend that money. Personally, I don't agree with this. I have worked out as fairly as I can that my children cost me approx £700 a month (that includes £250 a month for childcare and £150 a month for activities). I receive CB, so that about £550 left to ideally divide between their dad and I. If his 20% came up as more than £225, then yes, I would be happy for the difference to be put in a saving account and for him to manage. However, if his 20% came to less than that, then I don't think it would be right that part of it should be put aside and therefore me having to contribute the difference even if my earning are higher than the nrp (even less if it is my partner who is the high earner).