Do csa ask for mothers income/assets??

jamespir

shegirl wrote: »

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

anguk wrote: »

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 wrote: »

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.

the father can still take responsibility but the mother does not need money so there should be some other way for him to do it
its pretty unfair to cause the father financial hardship when the mothers rolling in it

shegirl

jamespir wrote: »

the father can still take responsibility but the mother does not need money so there should be some other way for him to do it
its pretty unfair to cause the father financial hardship when the mothers rolling in it

The money is for the children.Why the hell shouldn't the father pay just because the mother has money?If they were living together he'd be paying wouldn't he!!!!!

jamespir

shegirl wrote: »

The money is for the children.Why the hell shouldn't the father pay just because the mother has money?If they were living together he'd be paying wouldn't he!!!!!(they would bothe be sharing the money recieved)

that would be great if the kids actually got it

its unfair if the man was to get some money the mother can claim more csa

and if nrp have to disclose their income so should pwc

Mojisola

shegirl wrote: »

The money is for the children.Why the hell shouldn't the father pay just because the mother has money?If they were living together he'd be paying wouldn't he!!!!!

Unless the wife put the money into her own account and refused to spend it on family expenses, no, he wouldn't still be paying the same amount from his income because the family would be benefiting from the lump sum and/or the interest from it.

Because the children usually stay with the mother, these arguments get polarised into men/women arguments. The rules for the NRP apply whether that's the father or the mother.

shegirl

Mojisola wrote: »

Unless the wife put the money into her own account and refused to spend it on family expenses, no, he wouldn't still be paying the same amount from his income because the family would be benefiting from the lump sum and/or the interest from it.

Because the children usually stay with the mother, these arguments get polarised into men/women arguments. The rules for the NRP apply whether that's the father or the mother.

Or the family would move into a bigger property and the father would still be paying towards the household,or it could be earmarked for certain things,put away for when the kids are older,or maybe blown on new cars/holidays etc with the father still contributing in the same way to the normal family costs....If they were still together there would be more money spare to give a better quality of life to the kids/family.

Either way,nothing should negate the nrps financial responsibility to their children.

clearingout

jamespir wrote: »

that would be great if the kids actually got it

its unfair if the man was to get some money the mother can claim more csa

and if nrp have to disclose their income so should pwc

it's not about the mother though, is it? it's about the financial support of the children. With parents living together, children would benefit from things such as a work bonus, inheritance, lottery win etc. so why should that be any different when parents live apart? it is easy to say that the PWC doesn't spend the money on the children but equally is it easy to say the NRP won't spend money on the children....it works both ways. Some parents will abuse the system, whatever the system is. By far the majority are capable of putting the crap aside and trying to do what's best for the children.

Valli

jamespir wrote: »

that would be great if the kids actually got it

its unfair if the man was to get some money the mother can claim more csa

and if nrp have to disclose their income so should pwc

they do get 'it' though - indirectly. Someone has to pay for a roof over their heads, bills, food etc etc

and the NRP isn't the one who has to wipe snotty noses, messy backsides, clean up the vomit, take and fetch from school.

Usually, because women have these 'unpaid' responsibilities, they end up in lower paid, part time jobs while they have children at home.

My mortgage payment is more than I get from the Vallikids dad...and I feed, and clothe these kids too.

jamespir

Valli wrote: »

they do get 'it' though - indirectly. Someone has to pay for a roof over their heads, bills, food etc etc

and the NRP isn't the one who has to wipe snotty noses, messy backsides, clean up the vomit, take and fetch from school.

Usually, because women have these 'unpaid' responsibilities, they end up in lower paid, part time jobs while they have children at home.

My mortgage payment is more than I get from the Vallikids dad...and I feed, and clothe these kids too.

so dad doesnt do that on the days he has them then

shoe*diva79

What a lot of people forget is CM isnt just about clothes on the kids back and food in their bellys.... its about a roof over their heads, water, gas/electric, school trips (my daughter has brought home 3 trip letters in the past months totalling just under £150!!!!) birthday parties, after school clubs/activities.

Maybe I should give my 13 year old daughter the CM I receive each week from her father (via the CSA as he refuses to support any other way) and ask her to give me receipts for everything she buys - after I have charged her rent/board!!!!

Valli

jamespir wrote: »

so dad doesnt do that on the days he has them then

He doesn't clothe them, no. They get 1 meal and turn up back here, at 7, starving.
They go on holidays with me. Their dad has taken them out for the day.
On occasion he has had them overnight - probably less than 10 times in total. I no longer bother telling him about parents evenings etc because he never ever comes. He has, however, accompanied DD to target setting day a couple of times. They stay home if they're ill!