CSA Please can anyone advise

clearingout

vicster994 wrote: »

Sensible working 2 days a week smoking child on the pill. Not really, how on earth is that teaching a child about the prevention of stds. I am shocked that you who works at a school thinks the pill is better than other prevention's.

this is not the place for a moral debate on teenagers having sex. What you have to accept is that teenagers are having sex earlier and earlier and are therefore at risk of yes, STI's and pregnancy. The Pill works and works well. Your step daughter should not find herself pregnant as a result. That's one less thing to worry about. You seem to presume that mum/the GP/sexual health clinic/school nurse/PHSE lessons/a good teacher....are not working with your daughter to educate her on how to prevent STI's. I doubt that's the case.

romanempire

vicster994 wrote: »

Dont the thought of paying them more does not bare thinking about...why is it in her control

Because the choice to continue with the CSA1 case or close it and open a new case 13? weeks later on CSA2 rests solely with the ex.

R.

duchy

vicster994 wrote: »

Dont the thought of paying them more does not bare thinking about...why is it in her control

More than WHAT ?
You've paid zero for the last four years !!!

Plenty of single parents work fewer hours simply to be around for their kids-I've done it . Employers don't take too kindly to lots of time off for hospital appointments, SENCO appointments , picking up where classroom support fails not to mention the more usual non disability related duties every parent who bothers living with their child does.

"The thought of paying them more" You appear to be resentful and bitter towards the child as well as the mother . Take a long look at yourself -it's not pretty.

As for handling the Mother's housing claim-most councils take a very dim view of that-in case staff breech confidentiality by discussing the case.......Oh wait a minute-you just did ! Gross misconduct -it'd only take one person recognising you on here and putting in a complaint and you wouldn't need to worry as you'll be back on zero assessment again anyway.

Really your nastiness towards both the Mother and your sons' half sister is pretty shocking.

vicster994

DeeDee74 wrote: »

NRP claims CTC WTC also, so its ok for nrp but not pwc, both claim cause thay can simple dont see your point

dont claim CTC or WTC

duchy

kevin137 wrote: »

The OP wants to better life for her own family, and lets be honest, has NO obligation the the EX of the NRP, so why should she not ask "is this possible" that is what this forum is about after all...

We have the ranting of a bitter jealous woman representing how SHE sees the Mother of the girl -and the girl herself-forgive me if I take those representations with a pinch of salt.

She as an individual may feel she has no responsibility or obligation to the child however she isn't talking about her personal obligation but the obligations of her family unit-which includes the child's Father -who does have an obligation ....and if you are involved in a partnership the obligations of the other partner can't be ignored -as if they are there is no partnershp -just two individuals. If they are claiming TCs, CB etc and paying rent etc as a unit then their obligations and responsibilities are also joint. You can't have one without the other.

vicster994

kevin137 wrote: »

Where does it say that...??? nd if bot the NRP and NRPP are working which has been said they are, it is very unlikely they would qualify for them....!

Yes thanks Kevin we do not claim either. Many women on here assuming yet again

duchy

vicster994 wrote: »

dont claim CTC or WTC

Then you can afford £65 a week -you don't get it both ways.

Frankly if you've gone from a zero assessment to both of you working and jointly earning enough to not qualify for CTC/WTC then you've had a massive change of circumstances for the better and it is only fitting the child of your husband also benefits not just legally but morally too.

vicster994

duchy wrote: »

We have the ranting of a bitter jealous woman representing how SHE sees the Mother of the girl -and the girl herself-forgive me if I take those representations with a pinch of salt.

She as an individual may feel she has no responsibility or obligation to the child however she isn't talking about her personal obligation but the obligations of her family unit-which includes the child's Father -who does have an obligation ....and if you are involved in a partnership the obligations of the other partner can't be ignored -as if they are there is no partnershp -just two individuals. If they are claiming TCs, CB etc and paying rent etc as a unit then their obligations and responsibilities are also joint. You can't have one without the other.

Thanks not jealous pitty I am afraid

vicster994

Was her rent officer read what I said

duchy

vicster994 wrote: »

Thanks not jealous pitty I am afraid

Could you type in English please