CSA & Step Parent Salary

FBaby

fannyanna wrote: »

How does the government see it differently? Sorry if you've already outlined this and I've missed it.

As follow:
nrp pays 'x' in maintenance payment which contributes towards the costs of bringing up his and ex children. He loses his job, he just doesn't have to pay a penny any longer (or £5 a week). The nrpp could be earning a fortune, it makes no difference at all, the difference has to be made up by default by the pwc. the pwc won't get any more benefits because maintenance (or lack of) is not taken into account. The pwc has either choice to find the difference somwhere, or the children will have to do with significantly less, which might be difficult if there were not getting a life of luxury to start with.

pwc loses her job, she can't expect the nrp to pick up the difference, can't ask for maintenance to be increased and certainly not expect the nrpp to help. If her partner earns a good salary, she won't be able to claim the benefits she would have been entitled to as a single mum. Her partner would be expected to support her AND her children.

My partner lost his job and stopped paying maintenance. That was it, my responsibility to decide what to do for our children. My kids come first, so they continued with their lives, I just had to spend less on me (and after 9 months up my hours from 33.75 to FT). Last January, I was under threat of redundancy and I suddenly realised how vulnerable it made me. I would have been entitled to JSA for 6 month, but nothing else, and that certainly wouldn't have supported the children and I, I would have had no choice but to rely on my partner. Don't get me wrong, he would have done it without a blink of the eye, but I don't think it is right that he really wouldn't have had a choice if he wanted to have stayed with me. Yet nrpps come here to be reassured that they don't have to help towards supporting their Step-children if their partner were to lose their job and not be able to contribute any longer. I just don't see how this is right.

fannyanna

FBaby wrote: »

As follow:
nrp pays 'x' in maintenance payment which contributes towards the costs of bringing up his and ex children. As well as the PWC's housing costs (in theory) He loses his job, he just doesn't have to pay a penny any longer (or £5 a week). Because he doesn't have any money. The nrpp could be earning a fortune, it makes no difference at all, as you said partners should not have to be responsible for children that are not theirs the difference has to be made up by default by the pwc as it would do if the PWC and NRP were still together. the pwc won't get any more benefits because maintenance (or lack of) is not taken into account which is just and fair. The pwc has either choice to find the difference somwhere, or the children will have to do with significantly less, which might be difficult if there were not getting a life of luxury to start with.

pwc loses her job, she can't expect the nrp to pick up the difference, can't ask for maintenance to be increased and certainly not expect the nrpp to help Agree. If her partner earns a good salary, she won't be able to claim the benefits she would have been entitled to as a single mum. Her partner would be expected to support her AND her children. Agree that this is not fair.

My partner lost his job and stopped paying maintenance. That was it, my responsibility to decide what to do for our children. My kids come first, so they continued with their lives, I just had to spend less on me (and after 9 months up my hours from 33.75 to FT). Last January, I was under threat of redundancy and I suddenly realised how vulnerable it made me. I would have been entitled to JSA for 6 month, but nothing else, and that certainly wouldn't have supported the children and I, I would have had no choice but to rely on my partner. Don't get me wrong, he would have done it without a blink of the eye, but I don't think it is right that he really wouldn't have had a choice if he wanted to have stayed with me. Once again I agree with you Yet nrpps come here to be reassured that they don't have to help towards supporting their Step-children if their partner were to lose their job and not be able to contribute any longer. I just don't see how this is right.
Based on this statement alone I agree and I can completely understand the injustice. However, there are occasions where the NRPP loses out too where the PWC gains. It’s all swings and roundabouts but ultimately I agree with your sentiment here and the situation that you have outlined is not fair.

I hope things with your job are now more stable. I’ve been there and it’s not fun but I was fortunate to not also have the worry of how to continue to raise children without a salary coming in.

As usual commeting above as I'm hopeless with multi-quote

FBaby

thanks, it does make me feel better that you understand my position, not one that I agonize over, but it does sometimes annoy me. I do agree that there are circumstances when the pwc benefits, there is no doubt about it. Most of the time, whoever earns most is often the one who is the most affected.

I did get the job, unfortunately I am now managed by a horrible woman who has a thing against mums. She never had children and seem to think that it is a crime to do so. As a result, she is making my life a nightmare in relation to flexible working, affecting my childcare arrangements. It looks like I will have no choice now but to put them in childcare every mornings and every evenings (i was picking them up at school twice a day which made things a bit better). My ex not only does give me a penny in maintenance, but also won't help at all. Even when he picks them up on Friday evenings, I am the one paying for the afterschool club that day... oh well, one more month and I'm off on holiday!

fannyanna

FBaby wrote: »

thanks, it does make me feel better that you understand my position, not one that I agonize over, but it does sometimes annoy me. I do agree that there are circumstances when the pwc benefits, there is no doubt about it. Most of the time, whoever earns most is often the one who is the most affected.

I did get the job, unfortunately I am now managed by a horrible woman who has a thing against mums. She never had children and seem to think that it is a crime to do so. As a result, she is making my life a nightmare in relation to flexible working, affecting my childcare arrangements. It looks like I will have no choice now but to put them in childcare every mornings and every evenings (i was picking them up at school twice a day which made things a bit better). My ex not only does give me a penny in maintenance, but also won't help at all. Even when he picks them up on Friday evenings, I am the one paying for the afterschool club that day... oh well, one more month and I'm off on holiday!

Well enjoy your holiday - at least that's something positive to look forward to

kezzygirl

op,no,you dont have to pay maintenance for your oh's children.and no,you dont have to provide the csa ANY of your financial details-it is none of their business.hth

Strapped

FBaby wrote: »

As follow:
nrp pays 'x' in maintenance payment which contributes towards the costs of bringing up his and ex children. He loses his job, he just doesn't have to pay a penny any longer (or £5 a week). The nrpp could be earning a fortune, it makes no difference at all, the difference has to be made up by default by the pwc. the pwc won't get any more benefits because maintenance (or lack of) is not taken into account. The pwc has either choice to find the difference somwhere, or the children will have to do with significantly less, which might be difficult if there were not getting a life of luxury to start with.

pwc loses her job, she can't expect the nrp to pick up the difference, can't ask for maintenance to be increased and certainly not expect the nrpp to help. If her partner earns a good salary, she won't be able to claim the benefits she would have been entitled to as a single mum. Her partner would be expected to support her AND her children.

My partner lost his job and stopped paying maintenance. That was it, my responsibility to decide what to do for our children. My kids come first, so they continued with their lives, I just had to spend less on me (and after 9 months up my hours from 33.75 to FT). Last January, I was under threat of redundancy and I suddenly realised how vulnerable it made me. I would have been entitled to JSA for 6 month, but nothing else, and that certainly wouldn't have supported the children and I, I would have had no choice but to rely on my partner. Don't get me wrong, he would have done it without a blink of the eye, but I don't think it is right that he really wouldn't have had a choice if he wanted to have stayed with me. Yet nrpps come here to be reassured that they don't have to help towards supporting their Step-children if their partner were to lose their job and not be able to contribute any longer. I just don't see how this is right.

This is where your arguement fails. The PWC doesn't get "any more" benefits because they have already been getting the full amount of benefits, plus maintenance, because as you have pointed out, maintenance is not taken into account for benefits purposes. So they are already receiving what the state deems is enough to live on. (Whether that is in practice enough is another whole kettle of fish but some people have no choice but to exist on it).

If the children really "have to do with significantly less", then that is exactly the same as what would've happened if the parents were still together.

ETA: Also, for those on CSA1 - PWC loses her job does indeed mean that maintenance goes up! Although I know that that doesn't happen on CSA2.

vitriol

you dont need to tell the csa about your job or any of your earnings at all, you are not responsible. he is the parent, and sadly he has now lost his job and maybe entitled to £65 a week in j.s.a. out of this £65 only £5 is needed to pay to csa for the child(ren). hopefully he will find employment again soon. times are very hard for everyone both PWC and NRP at the moment.