Can you help me see how this is fair

gingergee

Read this till page 12, thn decided i needed to comment, i am a mum of 4 (3 dads in case people ask) I made mistakes at age 15. Got told i wouldnt get far in life, the decided to prove people wrong! Have now got amazing qualifications, a good job, nice home etc. However, my ex (control freak) decided to burn ALL my stuff when i had the balls to leave him. Now with new partner struggling etc and exy poos has lived the life of riley...holidays to florida etc. For TWO years my OH told me to apply to the csa. I didnt for all the reasons mentioned in previous posts. I wanted life to be fair, didnt want to "rock the boat" etc. Now my ex has to pay me £100 a week, which is disregarded by my tax credits etc. I honestly dont think this is fair and i HATE the bloke. we now have a 30k + income whilst he is severly struggling to live. But........ if he had paid the agreed 30 a week when i left i wouldn't have gone to the CSA. Maybe you can sort a private arrangement with her and then you'll all be better off in the long run, good luck with everything tho, and dont be thinking all ex partners are money grabbing layabouts lol xxx

kezzygirl

I would love to know how all of you think that by a nrp not paying maintenance they are 'depriving' their child?
As far as I can see,the pwc is on a good whack considering they dont have to declare their maintenance!!

My husband gave up work to look after our children,I work full time as I am better qualified and have a good job...and no,he doesnt pay maintenance anymore.For 14years he paid it for a child and the csa made numerous !!!! ups,taking 3x the amount of maintaneance they should have three months in a row-£650.Leaving us,with our newborn baby,with £600 to pay all of our bills with.

Many times could we not afford to go out or do something because we simply couldnt afford it.PWC on the other hand,in the pub every night,hair done monthly(in exactly my style and colour might I add),new clothes etc.Shame she couldnt be bothered to sort the kids' shabby stinky clothes and my step daughters nit problem...no,that was down to us.

I am ranting a bit here,but my point is,the kids arent necessarily deprived if nrp dont pay maintenance considering the fact that it is a sort-of 'cash on the side'.

FBaby

So are things better now that your husband pays no maintenance at all? Does he feel happier that his ex doesn't get as much to go and get her haid done regularly now? Did the pwc suddenly woke up and decided that as a result of not getting any maintenance, she was now going to be a good mum and sort out the nit problem (not sure why this is a pwc issue alone, or what it has to do with maintenance...).

What has been gained from the child's perspective now that no maintenance is paid? Doesn't your husband feel any guilt that he is not supporting his child at all? The pwc might be getting money from the tax payers to raise their child, but by his actions, your husband is expecting the exact same thing. I don't know, I thought there was pride attached to knowing that you work hard to provide for your children, all of them, a way to show how important your kids are to you. How does he expect his child to grow up feeling towards his dad??

krisskross

FBaby wrote: »

So are things better now that your husband pays no maintenance at all? Does he feel happier that his ex doesn't get as much to go and get her haid done regularly now? Did the pwc suddenly woke up and decided that as a result of not getting any maintenance, she was now going to be a good mum and sort out the nit problem (not sure why this is a pwc issue alone, or what it has to do with maintenance...).

What has been gained from the child's perspective now that no maintenance is paid? Doesn't your husband feel any guilt that he is not supporting his child at all? The pwc might be getting money from the tax payers to raise their child, but by his actions, your husband is expecting the exact same thing. I don't know, I thought there was pride attached to knowing that you work hard to provide for your children, all of them, a way to show how important your kids are to you. How does he expect his child to grow up feeling towards his dad??

I read the post as the requirement for child maintenance had ended as the children were grown up, not that the father had simply decided to stop paying.

Marisco

FBaby wrote: »

The pwc might be getting money from the tax payers

That's the thing though, it should be either/or, not both. In some cases, the PWC ends up better off than the NRP who is working!!! Is that fair??? I don't think so! The case that kezzygirl sites, it's obviously better for her family, if her oh stays at home and she works for reasons she has stated. Unfortunate as it may be, for the "first family", that is naturally how people think. Kezz is not going to consider the ex is she, or the ex's kids above her own. That is human nature I'm afraid, and no amount of howls will change that. The best the CSA can do is to try to be fair to PWC's and NRP's, unfortunately they are failing badly at both!!!

AnxiousMum

Marisco wrote: »

That's the thing though, it should be either/or, not both. In some cases, the PWC ends up better off than the NRP who is working!!! Is that fair??? I don't think so! The case that kezzygirl sites, it's obviously better for her family, if her oh stays at home and she works for reasons she has stated. Unfortunate as it may be, for the "first family", that is naturally how people think. Kezz is not going to consider the ex is she, or the ex's kids above her own. That is human nature I'm afraid, and no amount of howls will change that. The best the CSA can do is to try to be fair to PWC's and NRP's, unfortunately they are failing badly at both!!!

No, Kezz likely wouldn't consider the OH's child before their own - that's human nature. However, her OH should give equal consideration to BOTH children....one does not replace the previous children - both need to be provided for by both parents. I think many NRP's if looking at potential earnings of their partners, would be 'better off' if they stayed home and the new partner worked, as obviously, there's no child support for the first child coming off of their partner's salary is there?

By not providing for a child - whether it be the pwc or the nrp - they are abandoning the very simple needs of a child - Now, if he refused to feed the dog.....the RSPCA would be down on him.....yet a child can be walked away from?

newyearnewme_2

I have shared care but am classed as PWC as I get tax credits and child benefit, I do think that NRPs do get a bit of a raw deal where there is a lot of contact (as they have to provide for child during contact, possibly have a room, get no help ie ChB or TC).

I also don't believe that a NRPP income should be used in CSA calculations except when the NRP gives up work to look after the "new children" as by the NRP giving up work saves on childcare or allows the "new" family income to be higher through no maintenance being paid and possibly the NRPP is a higher earner, but the "first" children then lose the maintenance, however I know this would be difficult to enforce and maybe if Child support was more flexible (looks at circumstances - shared care being a classic example!) then perhaps NRP may not be tempted to give up work.

In regards to benefits not paying for more then two children, I don't think this is fair as some people have large families and don't claim then **it happens and they are forced to claim, a fairer system would be benefits will only support exsisting children when you make the claim or for those that are childless then they would be allowed to have one child who could be claimed for, but any more and you wouldn't get any further help.

Marisco

Yes I agree AM, but maybe the childcare plus CSA is not affordable. We don't know the reason Kezz's oh is staying at home. Maybe all his wages would go in CSA and childcare, so it's not worth him working, and if Kezz earns more, then it seems sensible that he stay home and not her. If she stayed home, then maybe his wages are not enough to cover CSA, childcare and all the bills. And be honest, no one is going to work if all the money is going on CSA and childcare.

newyearnewme_2

Yes I agree AM, but maybe the childcare plus CSA is not affordable. We don't know the reason Kezz's oh is staying at home. Maybe all his wages would go in CSA and childcare, so it's not worth him working, and if Kezz earns more, then it seems sensible that he stay home and not her. If she stayed home, then maybe his wages are not enough to cover CSA, childcare and all the bills. And be honest, no one is going to work if all the money is going on CSA and childcare. Today 5:55 PM

Marisco - if she (assume you mean the NRPP) styed at home there would be no childcare!

Marisco

Yes, you're right, my mistake:o But maybe the oh earns a low income and it won't stretch to everything, minus childcare!! It makes sense for the low earner to give up work to look after children, whether they are NRPP, NRP, PWC or PWCP. Maybe they could work out to pay something, then that would be fair. It might not be what the CSA would award or what PWC wants, but it would show willing.