his wedding, my son is barely invited.

13Kent

Princessdreamer

You are failing to see the issue as you are presumably the pwc who sees things from a different perspective to me as a NRPP.

To try to explain the situation from my point of view

I feel it's not fair as he did not choose to be an absent father, that decision was made by the PWC who then moves her boyfriend into what was my husbands house with many years of mortgage already paid off, so my husband has to start again on the housing ladder, he has to find himself another home big enough to accommodate his children so a cheap 1 bed flat won't suffice, (initially a rental of £650 a month for a 3 bed terraced house plus the associated council tax so that he has the room to have his children overnight) he pays over the odds for maintenance - the CSA themselves confirmed this - he has to pay all the contact costs, so I think you'll agree that with £650 for rent, £600 csa and other bills - council tax, household bills, car insurance tax and maintenance, it didn't leave him with a lot to live on.

In recent years after we met and got married things got easier as 2 of us were sharing the bills, but our tax credits get included in our income to be calculated for CSA purposes, as does my income, (but her partner's income is not included and he can contribute to the household expenses in just the same way as I can). So in effect money from the government for our shared children contributes towards the children he has with her.

My husband was practically destitute when he left his family home, and has had to build himself back up from nothing both financially and on a personal level having lost the life he was expecting to have with his family, and 10 years on although on a personal level his life is much better, financially things are still difficult, whereas the PWC got her mortgage and bills paid by direct debit from their account that my husbands wages went into (she didn't work) plus voluntary maintenance when he first moved out, and then a generous CSA payment once they were involved, (and then extra arrears paid as she told the CSA he had made no voluntary payments and the CSA took her word over his -so he paid twice - hardly taking money away from the child as you put it!). She still has her comfortable home with her children and now her new partner, and with the generous CSA payments can afford good lifestyle (and yes the children do benefit from that before you jump on me) but we still struggle with what we have to pay. If we could pay the CSA 2 amount of £250 then we would feel it was fair, but paying more than double that and then on top of that still being expected to pay extras is really not fair.

If you can justify to me why you think that is fair then I would be interested to hear your perspective.

FatVonD

princessdreamer wrote: »

The CSA is a mess though it is time all calculations were based on the total household income of the NRP rather than the new loophole they have where the man becomes a househusband while the new partner works and the first family get screwed over. Now that is unfair.

Okay, I can't resist (sorry OP for hijacking your thread!) so in my scenario...

I have a career and have worked full time since my son was at school and earn far more than my husband. My son has paid the price for this in being in childcare after school pretty much every day for the whole of his schooldays. He hasn't had his mum at the school gates when he's had a bad day, friendships have suffered as he wasn't able to have play dates after school and I've not spent nearly as much time with him as I'd have liked. The benefits to this are that I own a house in a nice area, he goes to a nice school and doesn't really want for much materially.

DH's ex got pregnant 'accidentally on purpose' (on the advice of her own mother when she found out DH's family were comfortably off!) at 17 and gave up work (also putting paid to DH's chance of a musical career in a signed band as he had to get a 'proper' job to support them.) She then had 2 more children and stayed home with each of them. When the youngest was in junior school she started working 2 days per week in a lowly paid job. They are short of money but she was always there to pick up/drop off her children and they are lovely children.

Fast forward to now and me being married to her ex husband, why should my salary be taken into account when calculating my husband's payments to her because he has married somebody with greater earning potential? Both my son and myself have paid the price for me to have a career but is anyone going to give my son back the things he missed out on because I've now remarried? I chose a different path to her and BOTH had a price to pay and we're both paying that price (me with working parent guilt and her with little career prospects/low earning potential.)

Don't get me wrong, I love my step children and make sure they are treated as well as my own DS (birthdays/Christmas etc) and I in fact make it possible for DH to be able to pay what he pays for them at the moment (more than she would get from CSA) by paying the lion's share of all our household expenses, if I asked him to pay half there would be no money left over for maintainence(sp?) so I am subsidising/facilitating/whatever DH's maintainence payments already but do I think I should be paying her a percentage of my salary, NO WAY!

13Kent

princessdreamer wrote: »

The CSA is a mess though it is time all calculations were based on the total household income of the NRP

On CSA 1 it is, including our tax credits and child benefit and my income as well as the NRP's.

So to be fair then by the same token then the PWC 's income should be assessed by the total household income of the PWC' s household including their child benefit and tax credits and partner's income too - so that when she works but claims tax credits she is not assessed as having NIL income by the CSA as she is on a benefit.

Tax credits are counted as a benefit by the CSA so even though our PWC works and so does her partner she is considered to have no income by the csa.

Marisco

Excellent post 13Kent:T But I'm afraid you're wasting your time:( Many PWC (not all by a long shot, before I get flamed:D) but many think the NRP should pay as they did when they were together, forgetting that NRP's have to have a life and pay bills as well. Half the time the kids wouldn't have got "stuff" even if the parents were still together, why should PWC's expect if if they are separated??? If you cannot afford it when you are together, then you sure as hell can't afford it when separated!!!

Marisco

Another good post FatVonD :T

Zoetoes

13Kent wrote: »

My husband was practically destitute when he left his family home, and has had to build himself back up from nothing both financially and on a personal level having lost the life he was expecting to have with his family, and 10 years on although on a personal level his life is much better, financially things are still difficult, whereas the PWC got her mortgage and bills paid by direct debit from their account that my husbands wages went into (she didn't work) plus voluntary maintenance when he first moved out, and then a generous CSA payment once they were involved, (and then extra arrears paid as she told the CSA he had made no voluntary payments and the CSA took her word over his -so he paid twice - hardly taking money away from the child as you put it!). She still has her comfortable home with her children and now her new partner, and with the generous CSA payments can afford good lifestyle (and yes the children do benefit from that before you jump on me) but we still struggle with what we have to pay. If we could pay the CSA 2 amount of £250 then we would feel it was fair, but paying more than double that and then on top of that still being expected to pay extras is really not fair.

If you can justify to me why you think that is fair then I would be interested to hear your perspective.

Was this not paid into a bank account?

elisebutt65

Reverbe wrote: »

END of Sept ish when I went.. it's all starting to whiff of windup a bit..we are in August now...

Reverbe wrote: »

They call Uni Terms Trimesters now?? I thought that was just a pregnancy expression???

This really isnt ringing true at all..

If you bothered to read earlier, the OP has to go in to catch up on assignments missed due to sickness etc, or she has to re-take the year. Makes sense as I had to re-do my HR exam in late August after I missed it due to an operation.

Also we use Trimestering, where I work - it's just a fancy/latin name for 3 terms! Most Uni's use semesters (i.i. 2 terms) but some, like ours, stick to traditional 3 to align with schools as it allows students and staff to sync their childcare arrangements.

Zoetoes

FatVonD wrote: »

Okay, I can't resist (sorry OP for hijacking your thread!) so in my scenario...

I have a career and have worked full time since my son was at school and earn far more than my husband. My son has paid the price for this in being in childcare after school pretty much every day for the whole of his schooldays. He hasn't had his mum at the school gates when he's had a bad day, friendships have suffered as he wasn't able to have play dates after school and I've not spent nearly as much time with him as I'd have liked. The benefits to this are that I own a house in a nice area, he goes to a nice school and doesn't really want for much materially.

DH's ex got pregnant 'accidentally on purpose' (on the advice of her own mother when she found out DH's family were comfortably off!) at 17 and gave up work (also putting paid to DH's chance of a musical career in a signed band as he had to get a 'proper' job to support them.) She then had 2 more children and stayed home with each of them. When the youngest was in junior school she started working 2 days per week in a lowly paid job. They are short of money but she was always there to pick up/drop off her children and they are lovely children.

Fast forward to now and me being married to her ex husband, why should my salary be taken into account when calculating my husband's payments to her because he has married somebody with greater earning potential? Both my son and myself have paid the price for me to have a career but is anyone going to give my son back the things he missed out on because I've now remarried? I chose a different path to her and BOTH had a price to pay and we're both paying that price (me with working parent guilt and her with little career prospects/low earning potential.)

Don't get me wrong, I love my step children and make sure they are treated as well as my own DS (birthdays/Christmas etc) and I in fact make it possible for DH to be able to pay what he pays for them at the moment (more than she would get from CSA) by paying the lion's share of all our household expenses, if I asked him to pay half there would be no money left over for maintainence(sp?) so I am subsidising/facilitating/whatever DH's maintainence payments already but do I think I should be paying her a percentage of my salary, NO WAY!

I didn't even know they did that, god I feel your anger! :eek:

I don't think princessdreamer meant cases like yours, I think she was referring to when the husband deliberately doesn't work to avoid paying cs.

Zoetoes

3v3 wrote: »

It's completely different.

1) I am female: the thread is about the father's perspective of his two children; each born under two completely different circumstances - one he didn't actively choose to conceive and which he took time to adjust to the idea of, the second of which he sees 24/7, which he presumably had more choice over as he is now marrying the mother.

2) I raised all of my children on a 24/7 basis: the thread refers to a father who's contact with one son equates to approx 4hrs out of a 168hr week and another he has contact with 24/7.
Even if the father had seen his first son every week of his life for all 4yrs at 4hrs per week, his overall "contact/bonding" time with that child would equate to an average of 832hrs or, put another way the equivalent of, roughly 5wks of 24/7 contact over 4 years.
Second son is approximately 1yr old. His contact/bonding hrs with this child would equate to 8736hrs in just one year! Significantly higher.

So, all things are not equal. It is not as simple to say he should feel the same about both of them when a) they were born under different circumstances b) the contact/bonding opportunities were not equal and c) the obligations/responsibilities differ between the two situations. Nor is it possible to treat them both equally when they are being brought up in two different places and two differing lifestyles.

Of course, it's different, I never disputed that.

Once a month to see your child is ridiculous without good reason (job, army etc etc), he should have made more effort.

13Kent

Zoetoes wrote: »

Was this not paid into a bank account?

As he discovered only too late paying money into the PWC's bank does not prove you have paid maintenance - unless money is specifically designated and marked as "maintainance for child x and y" they the CSA don't count it as such and the onus is on the NRP to prove that the money was paid for that purpose.

In our case they took the PWC's word for it.

I didn't mention the debts she left him with either, a loan repayment, household bills that she left him with that were in his sole name as she didn't work, that after he left she didn't pay, (for a time when he wasn't even living in the house too) that bounced back with some via debt collectors later to my unsuspecting husband, so he had the expense of that on top of his other living expenses.

His credit rating was shot to pieces on top of everything else - he couldn't even change his mobile phone for a cheaper one to try and save himself some money.