Advice re payments for child

b6204

My partner pays his ex a set amount weekly via CSA for his only child and is happy to do so. She is approaching her 16th birthday and will remain in full time education going to college this year and then Uni. My partner feels that his ex spends the money on herself and now wants to pay the money directly to his daughter to help her save a substantial amount toward the cost of uni. The ex is arguing that this money is not the daughters but hers to help cover the cost of living expenses for the child.

I may be wrong but I agree with the ex. The money my partner pays her should help towards costs for his daughter for things like food, clothes, the roof over her head and in my opinion its a very small amount to what he would have been paying had they still been together.

I'd really appreciate some clarity on this matter. What exactly is child maintenance payments supposed to cover and who should the money be paid to?

I have been married twice myself and have three children I've never received any payments for so I have no clue as to what's right or wrong but I feel that just because one parent walked away doesn't make it suddenly cheaper to raise the child from that relationship.

Thanks for your help, its much appreciated
B

shell_542

You and the ex are right. CSA payments are due to the Parent With Care. They cannot be paid directly to the child.

PreludeForTimeFeelers

You're right B, the money is there to cover the costs of bringing up his daughter, for food and clothes and so on.

DUTR

b6204 wrote: »

My partner pays his ex a set amount weekly via CSA for his only child and is happy to do so. She is approaching her 16th birthday and will remain in full time education going to college this year and then Uni. My partner feels that his ex spends the money on herself and now wants to pay the money directly to his daughter to help her save a substantial amount toward the cost of uni. The ex is arguing that this money is not the daughters but hers to help cover the cost of living expenses for the child.

I may be wrong but I agree with the ex. The money my partner pays her should help towards costs for his daughter for things like food, clothes, the roof over her head and in my opinion its a very small amount to what he would have been paying had they still been together.

I'd really appreciate some clarity on this matter. What exactly is child maintenance payments supposed to cover and who should the money be paid to?

I have been married twice myself and have three children I've never received any payments for so I have no clue as to what's right or wrong but I feel that just because one parent walked away doesn't make it suddenly cheaper to raise the child from that relationship.

Thanks for your help, its much appreciated
B

1stly welcome to the forum, it's a great place for sharing thoughts and ideas , sometime debates too.
You are correct the money should go to the PWC (parent with care) and should be spent on the child.
In Practice it is spent on fags cheap supermarket booze and visits to the tattoo / piercing studio or nail bar















Ok I'm joking about what it is really spent on (well in the majority of cases), good on your partner though :beer:

Roy_G_Biv

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

You're right B, the money is there to cover the costs of bringing up his daughter, for food and clothes and so on.

Not if the PWC is on the social, I think that all changed in April 2010.

A PWC claiming social already had the needs of the child met by state benefits, therefore any income from an NRP is now the PWCs dispoable income and ceased to be child support.

Some REMO nations have changed their policy to reflect this, and only raise a liability against a resident based only on the actual needs of the child, and not by reference to the residents personal income.

AnxiousMum

Roy_G_Biv wrote: »

Not if the PWC is on the social, I think that all changed in April 2010.

A PWC claiming social already had the needs of the child met by state benefits, therefore any income from an NRP is now the PWCs dispoable income and ceased to be child support.

Some REMO nations have changed their policy to reflect this, and only raise a liability against a resident based only on the actual needs of the child, and not by reference to the residents personal income.

And many REMO nations, including the one I use, go based on the income of the NRP and how many kids they have and a set amount is paid and enforced! I think you will find that alot of kids who were with pwc's who were on social are having their needs met alot better now that they are receiving the full child support into the home - not all, but many

OP - the money is to 'meet the needs of the child' and in an almost perfect world, that is exactly what all PWC's would use it for. I applaud you, being the new partner, seeking advice on what is the right thing to do, and not complaining bitterly about what your partner has to pay for his child.

Ideally, if the child is wanting to go to university, the pwc will be putting money aside for university costs. I have one in uni this year, and needed to pay one term of his accommodation for him, as despite having full student loan, but no grants, this itself did not cover the cost of uni. He had worked before going and took money with him that he worked hard and saved hard for. The reality is though, that children still need maintaining while in university - not ALL courses allow the ability to work part time, and there's not enough student work out there for all that want it anyway.

b6204

OP - the money is to 'meet the needs of the child' and in an almost perfect world, that is exactly what all PWC's would use it for. I applaud you, being the new partner, seeking advice on what is the right thing to do, and not complaining bitterly about what your partner has to pay for his child.

Ideally, if the child is wanting to go to university, the pwc will be putting money aside for university costs. I have one in uni this year, and needed to pay one term of his accommodation for him, as despite having full student loan, but no grants, this itself did not cover the cost of uni. He had worked before going and took money with him that he worked hard and saved hard for. The reality is though, that children still need maintaining while in university - not ALL courses allow the ability to work part time, and there's not enough student work out there for all that want it anyway.[/QUOTE]

Many thanks for your kind words. I know the child's mum does not claim any benefits apart from possibly working family tax credit (although I don't know about this). She works full time and is single, only her income and what she gets from my partner. He is on a very good wage but seems to think the money he pays should be entirely for his daughter, sort of 'pocket money'. It always amazes me that for a very intelligent man he is so blind to the reality of the situation here. What;s more, he actually is a school principle and yet is convinced that his daughters uni costs will be met with a grant. no amount of me telling him this is no longer the case seems to be getting through to him.

Now he wants to cut off all the money to his ex and give it to his daughter who he doesn't want to work through uni, he feels she should devote her time entirely to study but he has never considered how poor mum will meet the growing cost of supporting her daughter while she does this and he has no intention of helping out with costs.

I also know that mum does NOT spend a penny of this money on herself. Its obvious every penny and much more goes on the child. She wants for nothing and is superbly cared for by her mum. I know she is the apple of her dad's eyes and rightly so, she's a good girl but he definitely appears to have a blind spot toward his ex when it comes to the money issue and I have no idea how to point him in the right direction without coming across as interfering.

Its not that we can afford more, we have a family too but I wish he would understand if he was still with his ex, he wouldn't stop paying the bills to save that money to cover his daughters future uni costs so why does he think he can do that now?

May I take this opportunity to thank all who have answered my question. I much appreciate your time and advice

B

clearingout

b6204 - I have no words of wisdom for you but I just wanted to say a huge 'thank you' for being a new partner who is able to see the wood for the trees. You've made my morning!

jjj1980

B, you are amazing!! If only more NRPs had partners, or even just a friend, like you around to try and make them see beyond their opinions of the PWC, things would be a lot easier for so many people!

tsstss7

clearingout wrote: »

b6204 - I have no words of wisdom for you but I just wanted to say a huge 'thank you' for being a new partner who is able to see the wood for the trees. You've made my morning!

Mine too!!

DX2

b6204 wrote: »

Now he wants to cut off all the money to his ex and give it to his daughter who he doesn't want to work through uni, he feels she should devote her time entirely to study but he has never considered how poor mum will meet the growing cost of supporting her daughter while she does this and he has no intention of helping out with costs.

Please, please, please make him see sense and don't let him stop paying child support he will end up in so much bother if he does and really isn't worth it.

If he goes down that path there is a good possibility that he will end up paying twice as the money that he pays his daughter will be classed as pocket money and his liability for child support will still be in force.