CSA have left me pennyless

speedster

PlayingHardball wrote: »

I think I can speak for all PWC in stating categorically that we do not...NOT... expect NRP to support our homes. 25% in the OP case would not pay a mortgage and all the bills that 'support' a home, I think you should give the PWC a bit of credit.

i do love "blinkered thinking" and sweeping statements like that!! :rotfl:

try reading a few of the horror stories on here and other forums as well as in the press sometimes to see it how it really is.

there is a core of bad PWC who abuse the system as well as a core of bad nrp's.

Blob

PlayingHardball wrote: »

Blob.....where did you get the idea that the NRP is having to support 2 homes? A NPR is not paying for 'home support' they are paying 'child support.

It is very simple the % that is taken from NRPs is paid to the PWC, I agree that it is for the child/children. The money though forms part of the income of the home, by definition that is supporting the home, as well as having to support the home that they live in after the breakdown of the family unit.

In the fullness of time when the CS stops some PWC have budget this factor into their lives so much that they have no idea of how to go on from there, as they have never worked and are then left at a point of having to! There have been in the past comments of this happening on here, you will have to find them as I am not going back through to do that.

Rorkes_Drift

PlayingHardball wrote: »

Blob.....where did you get the idea that the NRP is having to support 2 homes? A NRP is not paying for 'home support' they are paying 'child support.

An NRP is required to pay for two households concurrently because the CSA charges a % of his income irrespective of the actual needs of a child.

ohdamnit

I think I can speak for all PWC in stating categorically that we do not...NOT... expect NRP to support our homes. 25% in the OP case would not pay a mortgage and all the bills that 'support' a home, I think you should give the PWC a bit of credit.

You can't speak for all PWC, as there as many greedy/mental/irritating PWCs as there are NRPs. Just as I can't say I speak for all NRPs, there are good and bad people in all groups.

The point is that the 25% is not meant to support a home, it is to support children, although no assessment is made of the childrens needs, so at one end you might find they pay 25% which is not enough, or the other end it is way more. It also does not take into account any circumstances on either side.

There does with some PWCs seem to be a prevailing view that the CSA is meant to cover all the costs of the children (and that the 15-25%), this is not meant to be, nor should be the case. Both parents have a duty to cover the costs, again not personally at you hardball, but I see posts here which seem to suggest that ( and I know the PWC also has the issue of looking after the child, holidays, etc).

So if both parents earn the same (i.e. £1400, then £560 should cover the cost of the children), it doesn't matter that it doesn't cover the total household bill (including mortgage, etc), in the same way it doesn't cover it for the NRP. There are some base costs that have to be covered by both parties (i.e. a roof over the head), that would be there for both parties without children, the maintenance is really meant to cover a proportion of the differential for being the primary carer (or that was always my interpretation anyway).

That is why the % doesn't really work for either party, as it doesn't actually take into account any circumstance. For example the PWC could be earning 10k a month, or the NRP could be earning 10k a month, in which case the proportions probably ought to be different. It also doesn't cover situations where either parent may decide not to work/do part time when they could reasonably work more in order to pay a proportion.


Comments such as "I wish my kids only cost me 25% of my wage" fail to see the above point, if you actually look at how much it might cost to rent a 1 bed flat, vs a 3/4 bed house (for 3 kids), and then look at how much you spend on food above what you would need for yourself, clothing for kids, activities, etc, that is the cost of the kids, not how much you spend overall. I suspect most people do spend an extra 20-25% of their total wage because they have kids (£400-600 a month per household, for an extra couple of rooms, extra food, clothes, activities, etc might be about right).

Like I have said previously I was always willing to pay more than the "minimum", as I had more available "spare" income. Unfortunately doing full assessments to gain a true cost of the differential is far too complex, and it is just easier to work out 15-25% of total income, also it is easier to police and enforce.

Marisco

Very sensible post ohdam! The problems IMO, arise, where the PWC (and this is only some, before I get lynched!!!;)) expect things to be the same as when the NRP was still there!! This is what happened to my oh, his ex expected him to still pay her debts, the mortgage, AND give her CM!!:eek: As he was only on low pay, this proved impossible, and caused no end of trouble from her side! I think AM's Canadian system sounds fairer, where you can go in front of a judge and actually put your case over. If you can actually show figures as to why you cannot/can afford the amount awarded, instead of as ohdam says, a % regardless of needs and affordability, then maybe there wouldn't be so many NRP's trying to get out of it. Our argument with the CSA was never that oh didn't want to pay, he was always compliant, but the amount he had to paid. Something drastic needs to be done, as the CSA has not got any better since we dealt with them!!!!

ohdamnit

I think it should also be appealable by the PWC, if there ex is paying 20 quid a week, because they work cash in hand, or only part time by choice, then a PWC should be able to show the extra costs for primary care and have sanctions, etc enforced, the idea should be that costs of raising the childrens should be shared proportionally, with a degree of fairness, i.e both parents need to show they are trying to contribute, are able to contribute, etc.

I also see to many NRPs who are happy to "get away" with paying 15% whilst knowing they have lots more spare income, and they annoy me too, or claiming there income is lower (through cash payments, companies, accountants, etc), these people disgust me as much as anybody

Marisco

Yes I agree ohdam, that's why I think the Canadian system is fairer. Everyone would have to take their payslips etc and put their income before a judge, he could then decide if the NPR can reasonably afford to pay what is wanted. With "cash in hand" though, I think it would be a problem proving income, unless he was actually chucking money around. But someone just keeping their head down and living "normally" would be very hard to prove they had extra. I agree, an NRP evading paying is just as bad as a greedy PWC!! But I think it's time for a new system, where it's fair to everyone. PWC's need to realise they cannot live like they did before, and NRP's have to realise they must pay something towards the kids! I think we need Soloman here

EltonJohnFan

Dave,

I'm truly sorry to hear of your situation and let me tell you that I think you've done the best thing in your situation and hopefully? it all works out for you. I'd say you've been given some fantastic advice thus far and it's just a pity that so many fathers in this country are used as nothing more than a "donator" and walking wallets by very devious, cruel, underhand, controlling and manipulative women who care only about themselves but use "for the children" as their excuse. I know of many men in your situation, unfortunately, and though you still have rights and responsibilities (of which I'd urge you to stick to) I do know that in the journey ahead you will probably feel really fed up about things or think "what's the point" but please don't give up! pay what you have to and learn the lesson of what's what in the world nowadays. You have three beautiful children and nobody can take that away from you, however much they might try. Pick yourself up, do what you must, enjoy the time with your children and move on with your life and be happy, find happiness, seek it out and don't let this ex of yours have a hold over you and dictate your life. I think it's very wrong how many people are able to "play the system" as it were but from my (limited) understanding of CSA I do think the 25% quoted for three children is about right. I don't know, many apologies if this isn't a helpful post but your story really caught my attention and I just wanted to give you a little heads up, take care.