The CSA keeps badgering me to go back to work, but work doesnt pay, suggestions pleas

Marisco

gillypkk wrote: »

obviously im not expecting the NRP to pay for these things but im just stating that what he sees as her having a better lifestyle is better for the kids. no way would she be getting all this based on his CSA alone!

Unfortunately though gilly, some DO expect it!! My oh's ex expected him to pay the mortgage, debts she'd clocked up in his name AND pay CSA!!!! When he wouldn't - or rather couldn't, she went off it, and made his life hell for years re seeing the kids! It was only when she met someone (and the kids were older) that things calmed down!!

Transformer

Orville wrote: »

But there is the difference, his ex is refusing to let him see the kids. This does not stem from him refusing to pay childcare, it stems from her not getting the house etc in a divorce settlement. (Or at least that is how i have read the op's previous posts.)

What you guys seem to be forgetting here is that it is not the op who started this, it is the PWC who for whatever reason seems to be very bitter. If you ask me you should be having more of a go at her.

So he says, but sometimes there is more to it than chosen to say on these forums. I mean if you could have heard what my ex said about me to his new partner and family when we first split. He even told her we were still married and she targetted me with abuse and phone calls and harassment, because truth was she wants to marry him and go down ivf route as she cant have kids, but he says no not till I am divorceed.

We got divorced over seven years ago!!!!!!!!

He obviously is not ready for more kids, and he is showing little signs by his lying to her in this way.

The police and social services had to warn her away as although I am not well, she was a nut, kept ringing up asking where her baby was.

She would paint me as a vengeful moo, when truth was I felt I could breath when social services told me, go back and we will take your kids due to his violence, I chose to leave thank goodness.

you see we can paint many scenarios how we want to get sympathy, but truth is sometimes it has been going on for so long that perhaps the truth in a situation has got lost or moulded to what somone wants to believe though pure anger.

If op is genuine and entitled to more help re csa, after all this time why is he not getting it?

He has gone as far as probably can, simples

Orville

Transformer wrote: »

So he says, but sometimes there is more to it than chosen to say on these forums. I mean if you could have heard what my ex said about me to his new partner and family when we first split. He even told her we were still married and she targetted me with abuse and phone calls and harassment, because truth was she wants to marry him and go down ivf route as she cant have kids, but he says no not till I am divorceed.

We got divorced over seven years ago!!!!!!!!

He obviously is not ready for more kids, and he is showing little signs by his lying to her in this way.

The police and social services had to warn her away as although I am not well, she was a nut, kept ringing up asking where her baby was.

She would paint me as a vengeful moo, when truth was I felt I could breath when social services told me, go back and we will take your kids due to his violence, I chose to leave thank goodness.

you see we can paint many scenarios how we want to get sympathy, but truth is sometimes it has been going on for so long that perhaps the truth in a situation has got lost or moulded to what somone wants to believe though pure anger.

If op is genuine and entitled to more help re csa, after all this time why is he not getting it?

He has gone as far as probably can, simples

I understand totally where you are coming from. When people split for whatever reason all sorts of stuff gets hurled about. But to me the fact remains that the kids should never be used as a tool within a fight between the parents or by one parent trying to get back at another. Someone posted earlier about maintenance payments being linked to contact. I can think of no fairer way other then this to ensure everyone is happy. If the NRP does not pay, simple they don't see the kids. If the PWC will not let the NRP see the kids they should then be under no illusions that they will not get any money from the other party. That way everyone knows where they stand.

Marisco

I might be wrong here, but it sounds as if op is on CSA 1. If so, then I can understand his anger. It has to be the most unfair system going. Why the hell they can't put everyone on CSA 2 is beyond me, it's a much fairer system all round, and everyone knows where they are. It's a straight % of wages. CSA 1 has to be the most convoluted system going, it's totally incomprehensible.

They say that a NRPP's wages are not taken into account, well they are!! Because a NRPP is deemed to pay half of housing etc, it leaves the NRP with more disposable income for them to get their mitts on!!!

Transformer

Orville wrote: »

I understand totally where you are coming from. When people split for whatever reason all sorts of stuff gets hurled about. But to me the fact remains that the kids should never be used as a tool within a fight between the parents or by one parent trying to get back at another. Someone posted earlier about maintenance payments being linked to contact. I can think of no fairer way other then this to ensure everyone is happy. If the NRP does not pay, simple they don't see the kids. If the PWC will not let the NRP see the kids they should then be under no illusions that they will not get any money from the other party. That way everyone knows where they stand.

I dont see a problem with that:T

With that in place there would be less likely and excuse as to she or he would not let me see them. I mean if social services was involved for well some reasons they are, then they could still have the offer of the contact centre till prove a capable and trustworthy parent in those cases as well.

One thing i will say to any non resident parent who does not see your kids, it is never too late to make up, the kids are very very forgiving and at the end of the day are only interested in seeing both parents

Marisco

Orville wrote: »

If the PWC will not let the NRP see the kids they should then be under no illusions that they will not get any money from the other party. That way everyone knows where they stand.

Couldn't agree more Orville, I believe Australia already uses this system. I wish a PWC would come on here, and explain exactly why they won't let the NRP see the kids, and a NRP why he doesn't want to bother. Violence and abuse excepted of course, but I would love to hear their excuses!!

Transformer

Marisco wrote: »

I might be wrong here, but it sounds as if op is on CSA 1. If so, then I can understand his anger. It has to be the most unfair system going. Why the hell they can't put everyone on CSA 2 is beyond me, it's a much fairer system all round, and everyone knows where they are. It's a straight % of wages. CSA 1 has to be the most convoluted system going, it's totally incomprehensible.

They say that a NRPP's wages are not taken into account, well they are!! Because a NRPP is deemed to pay half of housing etc, it leaves the NRP with more disposable income for them to get their mitts on!!!

Mines on csa 1 too, pays over 500.00 a month at the moment. I know he has had a pay increase he told me, but I wont call the csa I think he pays enough as it is!!!!!!

500.00 but he does not begrudge one penny and the kids for the first time in years if need shoes or whatever can have it, hence why I let him know because learnt he likes to know and feels more involved.

Put it this way I will add, if he discretly does begrudge it as in amount , he is very diplomatic about it to protect his kids.

gillypkk

my ex throws are the line "i dont see the kids im going to stop the CSA" line all the time except ive offered him contact numerous times except he wont agree to regular contact. he wants to pick and choose when he sees the kids which isnt what best for them. they need stability and routine.

he also told me he just wants to see them for an hour once a year when he can be bothered. this i did say no to! ive asked him to get an agreement drawn up so there is no "he said/she said" and everyone knows who is meant to bring the kids to what location at whatever time for contact (he isnt getting near my home under any circumstances) but he wont agree coz again he wants it all on his terms when he can be bothered and when he hasnt blown the rest of his money on drink and can afford the travel.

thats my story marisco - not quite refusing him access just wanting to make it best for the kids with routine seeing as they are so young and have has alot of upheaval in their short lives thanks to him.

anguk

Orville wrote: »

But there is the difference, his ex is refusing to let him see the kids. This does not stem from him refusing to pay childcare, it stems from her not getting the house etc in a divorce settlement. (Or at least that is how i have read the op's previous posts.)

What you guys seem to be forgetting here is that it is not the op who started this, it is the PWC who for whatever reason seems to be very bitter. If you ask me you should be having more of a go at her.

I've stated several times that the ex is wrong to obstruct access, I also think it's wrong if she's using the kids as a cash cow.

The PWC may be very bitter and she also may have started this but that doesn't change the fact that a NRP should pay towards their children's upkeep. It doesn't matter who started what, who hates who, who is bitter etc, when you've got kids you have a responsibility to support them.

HappyMJ

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orville
If the PWC will not let the NRP see the kids they should then be under no illusions that they will not get any money from the other party. That way everyone knows where they stand.

Marisco wrote: »

Couldn't agree more Orville, I believe Australia already uses this system. I wish a PWC would come on here, and explain exactly why they won't let the NRP see the kids, and a NRP why he doesn't want to bother. Violence and abuse excepted of course, but I would love to hear their excuses!!

No, Australia still does not enforce care levels and child support. http://www.csa.gov.au/faqs/categories/parents/shared_care_but_my_ex_wont_let_me_see_my_children_what_can_i_do.php