Do csa ask for mothers income/assets??

kelloggs36

children cost money and whilst the mother may be able to afford to do it herself, it does not negate the financial responsibility of the father. All the NRP can do is to ensure that the case is correct - have they used the correct income details for him? Have they taken into account any shared care, etc.

clearingout

You can care for a child, yes. I have no doubt my ex cares enormously for his children, but that doesn't mean he's willing to put a roof over their heads or make sure they are wearing decent school shoes. He used to be great with them (hasn't seen them in over a year - his choice), probably has far more patience with the children than I have and I am sure between us, we had the makings of a great set of parents and cancelled out each other's weaknesses with our respective strengths. But loving or caring for a child doesn't put food on the table, clothes on their backs, shoes on their feet, keep the house warm, put toys in their toy baskets or pay the childminder. We wouldn't consider it acceptable that a couple ate caviar and fine wines whilst their children went without food, would we? Yet my NRP, and others like him, by refusing to contribute at any level (and I would personally accept 'in-kind' maintenance of shoes, clothes, payments direct to organisers for activities such as Beavers, after school club etc. etc. in lieu of maintenance)towards their children's upbringing, are effectively saying 'it's OK not to feed the children' or 'it's OK if they don't wear seasonally appropriate clothing'. If I behaved like that, my children would be taken from me by Social Services, yet my ex can get away with it, just because he chose an alternative life. He's not disabled, he's not ill or otherwise unable to work for legitimate reasons, he goes to work, his websites suggest he is successful. There is no reason whatsoever not to sit down with me and work out a way of supporting the children every which way they need to be supported - I am happy to share care, I am happy to work out a lower than CSA-level maintenance on this basis (he earns far more than me and has high expectations of what our children should wear/do, so I don't think that a shared care arrangement lets him off the financial side of things although I accept it reduces it). He's not interested. That's not good parenting in my books, but doesn't stop him caring for or loving his children, I'm sure.

So yes, you can be a good father without ever paying anything towards your children, I completely agree. But why, as a parent looking at the biggest possible picture regarding your children's needs, would you not assume a level of responsibility for their financial needs? Where one party earns more, or has access to considerable amounts of money over and above what it could be deemed is required to 'keep' a child, I would still think that most parents would want to make a contribution. Whether the CSA calculations are fair is another debate, but doesn't change that all parents should, surely, want to make a complete contribution to their children's lives?

duchy

It's a good point.

If a couple have a partnership where one partner earns the high income and the other works part-time/doesn't work to ensure the children are cared for -a fairly common dynamic in many relationships then why if they seperate should the children be expected to live a lifestyle dramatically lower than before ? Surely the ideal should be that even allowing for two households the aim should be that the children don't lose out. My ex currently spends more on a day out for himself and my son than my entire weekly income -his choice -he earns much more than I do but there are times I think that money could better benefit our son in other ways. It's all very well buying him designer jeans costing over £100 but it's a bit daft if he really needs new school shoes.

I let my career go to be the primary carer for our son -after we split up I took jobs that fitted around him (he has a disability so I had more calls on my time than most parents) although I had always worked it wasn't possible to get my career back to a point I'd be earning the same as my husband (when we first met I was the higher earner) with part-time/flexible roles. You don't get the juicy projects that lead to promotion when you need to leave bang on time to pick up from the childminder or to ensure a child isn't at home alone. They go to people who can stay late when needed or work the extra time) In a two parent home-maybe I could have done it -more likely for sure with two parents that I could have gone fulltime especially as my husband could and does at times work from home. My earning power is unlikely to ever recover (even though I'm trying) and that kind of economic loss is rarely considered by NRPs because they simply don't consider it as it's not something they've ever experienced first hand . So relating child support level to my ex-husband's earning power really doesn't seem unreasonable -and a seperate issue to the time he spends with our son (which is always at times to fit HIS lifestyle and his work patterns -eg if he has a business trip he expects us to fit in and change plans).

Whoops drifted waaaay off topic there what I was going to say before I went off on a tangent was -a normal day out for my son with his Dad is cinema and a meal out (usually expensive and Japanese) in central London and some shopping -My son would be equally happy with a DVD a bucket of popcorn and a pizza or just hanging out playing computer games -He's more interested in seeing his Dad and spending time with him than how much money he spends on him. I'll bet your step-kids are the same -just make it FUN and they'll be happy and you'll be less poor.

jamespir

DeeDee74 wrote: »

nope it doesent matter what the pwc get's they could be a millionaire , payment stay's the same.
why don't you stop paying for extras if your finding it hard?

thats where the system is wrong it should be taken into account
and dont blame the dad cause the mother's a greedy cow

Marisco

My sister did it as "payment in kind", her ex bought shoes, school uniform, trips etc, and it worked fine for her. The kids were taken care of, and the NRP didn't feel that the ex was getting the money "in the hand" to do what she wanted with it. I'm surprised more folk don't do it like this, how often do we hear NRP's complaining that the money is not going on the kids? Maybe doing it this way would get rid of a lot of the negativity regarding maintenance. I know with some NRP's nothing will work, but for others it could be the answer.

clearingout

Marisco wrote: »

My sister did it as "payment in kind", her ex bought shoes, school uniform, trips etc, and it worked fine for her. The kids were taken care of, and the NRP didn't feel that the ex was getting the money "in the hand" to do what she wanted with it. I'm surprised more folk don't do it like this, how often do we hear NRP's complaining that the money is not going on the kids? Maybe doing it this way would get rid of a lot of the negativity regarding maintenance. I know with some NRP's nothing will work, but for others it could be the answer.

I agree - it could work for some and as my ex is never going to pay maintenance direct, it is something I would accept as a compromise. However, it's not something I would be happy about - it's a control issue and doesn't acknowledge that I have bills to pay, food to put on the table etc. all of which the children use their fair share. I'm an adult, perfectly capable of managing my household's budget and I should be able to rely on x amount going towards that every month. I do accept, however, that not every PWC is capable of using money sensibly!

shegirl

jamespir wrote: »

thats where the system is wrong it should be taken into account
and dont blame the dad cause the mother's a greedy cow

It's called taking responsibility for your children!!!!

anguk

jamespir wrote: »

thats where the system is wrong it should be taken into account
and dont blame the dad cause the mother's a greedy cow

So because the mother has inherited some money the father should no longer have to be financially responsible for his own children? And if the mother quite rightly thinks that the father should still be financially responsible then she's a greedy cow? :huh:

Valli

jamespir wrote: »

thats where the system is wrong it should be taken into account
and dont blame the dad cause the mother's a greedy cow

was that out of your rear end?


The father has responsibility, that's as far as it goes.

And the reason the CSA (with all its faults) was brought into service was because a lot of parents were paying nothing at all to support their offspring - and, in the majority of cases, those non-paying parents were men.

shell_542

clearingout wrote: »

I agree - it could work for some and as my ex is never going to pay maintenance direct, it is something I would accept as a compromise. However, it's not something I would be happy about - it's a control issue and doesn't acknowledge that I have bills to pay, food to put on the table etc. all of which the children use their fair share. I'm an adult, perfectly capable of managing my household's budget and I should be able to rely on x amount going towards that every month. I do accept, however, that not every PWC is capable of using money sensibly!

It can also be a control issue the other way, surely. Just because (in many cases) the PWC is fortunate enough to be left in the position of "the PWC", why should they get to decide how the NRP spends their money on their children?

If there is ever the suggestion that PWCs should provide evidence or explanation about what they spend child support on, it is regularly met with comments like "I'm not explaining how I spend my money I am entitled to" or "I'm not being dictated to, how to spend the child support". But technically it's not their money, it's the NRP's money being spent on their child.

A lot of the time, the frustration of paying child support to an ex partner following a separation comes down to the fact that the NRP feels aggrieved that they have no say in how they support their children financially. Lots would love to be the PWC and get to do the day to day routine and have the expenses.

I am in no way disputing that NRPs should financially support their children.

Back to the OP. In answer to your question, simply no. The PWC's income is entirely irrelevant in the eyes of the CSA (on new cases that is).