Do csa ask for mothers income/assets??

anguk

13Kent wrote: »

But surely the same applies to the PWC's partner who is also "somebody else contributing to the household" especially when the PWC and her husband have children between them living in the same household. So why should they be deemed as havin nil income?

I do think that CSA1 is very unfair, it should be equal on both sides, if they're going to take the NRP's partners income into consideration then they should take the PWC's too.

The people who really seem to lose out are the second families where the woman is a PWC getting CSA2 from her ex and the guy a NRP paying CSA1 to his ex.

shegirl

13Kent wrote: »

I don't think it's unfair that the fact the nrps partner has an income is taken into consideration.It doesn't mean their money is taken but it means there is somebody else contributing to the household so not all the nrps money is going on that,meaning he has spare income.

But surely the same applies to the PWC's partner who is also "somebody else contributing to the household" especially when the PWC and her husband have children between them living in the same household. So why should they be deemed as havin nil income?

Why should my child benefit be counted as income when hers is not? Why does she have "nil" income when both her and her husband work?
How can they afford holidays to Florida, and all the latest gadgets such as flat screen tv's when the CSA say that she has 'nil' income?

If we were on CSA2 and paying the amount decreed then surely that amount is a fair amount as calculated by the CSA based on my husbands income and the number of days we have his children and the number of children we have. So if that amount is enough to feed and clothe the children in those circumstances then why do we have to pay nearly £600 a month for 2 children when we are on CSA 1 insteat of less than £300 as calcuated by the CSA themselves on their CSA2 system?

The pwcs partner isn't the father of the kids,taking them on yes but that shouldn't remove any financial responsibility from either of the parents.The nrps partner doesn't pay for the kids either and maintenance is for the sake of the kids,so it shouldn't be replaced by someone else but maybe the bit about saying there is a nil income when the pwcs partner works is a little off,but then I don't think it should matter whether the pwc is working or not-both parents should pay end of,that'll be why they introduced the new system -so niether are taken into account!.They don't look at the rent the pwc has to pay as that is not the point of the system is it,so the partner of the pwc isn't particularly relevent due to that.So I see that as a completely non argument tbh nothing should take away the financial responsibility

If the fact the nrp has a working partner wasn't taken into account (not that the partner pays but to split the protected income) on the old system then the nrp would be taken as paying full rent/mortgage,council tax,along with any pension etc then add on the set amount to live on how much would be left to work out maintenance for many?Not much if any for quite a few and it would be unfair to get away with paying for the kids you are responsible for because the nrp has a new life,one he doesn't wholly fund himself.That's the fair part of it -the nrp doesn't get away with not paying due to having a new life and the fact that he's not funding his home etc himself.That's why I'd imagine they have that in place regarding their partners.

The child benefit thing I kinda agree on same with working but being in receipt of working tax credits I guess.

As for the different csa systems it's all a bit bonkers isn't it!!Some are better off on one some are better off on the other.It's all a big muddle of different things

shegirl

anguk wrote: »

I do think that CSA1 is very unfair, it should be equal on both sides, if they're going to take the NRP's partners income into consideration then they should take the PWC's too.

The people who really seem to lose out are the second families where the woman is a PWC getting CSA2 from her ex and the guy a NRP paying CSA1 to his ex.

Can I ask why you think the pwcs partners income should be taken into consideration?I see no need for it.To me maintenance is about taking financial responsibility for your children.It's about the kids!Why should a parents responsibility financially reduce because there is someone else living with the kids?

IT's nothing like the nrps partner being taken into consideration at all and should never be seen as such

13Kent

"the bit about saying there is a nil income when the pwcs partner works is a little off"

But the PWC works also, so with two working adults in the family the CSA say their income is nil, so the PWC and partner's contribution to the maintenance amount is nil, and the NRP and partner's contribution is 100% of the maintenance amount.

My husband wants to support his children, but ALL his children, we can't afford to to spend nearly £600 a month to feed and clothe our own children. We can't afford holidays abroad, we make to with a few days in a caravan - usually including all the children in the holiday when the PWC allows us to do so. We have high housing costs because we have a bigger house than we need because we have to have an extra bedroom for when the other children come to stay, and a bedroom big enough to fit and extra bed in. We have a bigger car than we need for the same reason, and we have high fuel costs due to the trip to pick up the children every other weekend, which has never been shared by the PWC. My husband sees his children when the PWC says he can, and if we have them and she phones half way through the weekend and decides she wants them returned we feel we don't have much choice or the next time we go to pick them up they might not be there.....(From that point of view not being on CSA 2 is a bonus, as she would definitely block contact to increase the maintenance).

Now it had been my husband that had had an affair and left his wife and children then that's his own fault, but he tried for more than a year to keep his family together and it broke his heart when he was made to leave his family home and his children while she moved her boyfriend in and stayed in the house that he had been paying the mortgage for leaving him with no home, and no family - all he had left was his car. Fast forward a few years and he has made a new life for himself, but has had to start from scratch and needs to try to find the money save for another deposit for a mortgage which will run for 25 years - not 5 % this time but 20% whilst paying inflated CSA payments. Meanwhile the PWC sits in comfort in a house which has had the mortgage paid already for a good few years so doesn't have 25 years left to run, and has increased significantly in value, and every month she gets a payment which is double what the CSA calculate she needs based on his pay on their own calculations for CSA 2, and she can give her children lots of luxuries and treats - which is great for them, but what about our children who are missing out on extras due to the inflated maintenance payments he has to pay.

As I said before, we don't object to paying but would like it to be a fair amount.

shegirl

13Kent wrote: »

"the bit about saying there is a nil income when the pwcs partner works is a little off"

But the PWC works also, so with two working adults in the family the CSA say their income is nil, so the PWC and partner's contribution to the maintenance amount is nil, and the NRP and partner's contribution is 100% of the maintenance amount.

Well,I don't think the pwc or partner should make any contribution to the maintenance amount -they pay day in day out and care day in day out -it shouldn't be taken into account but saying 'nil income' is a bit daft lol.It should not be taken into account which would be part of the reasoning behind csa2 -that and the fact that the nrps costs were taken into consideration.

It's true that csa2 is fairer,because who pays what elsewhere shouldn't make a blind bit of difference,nothing in the world should reduce responsibility,I do think 15% can be a little low though,but hey ho it's better than the newest system they'll be bringing in lol

jamespir

clearingout wrote: »

on the days you have the children do you:
- ensure the child eats a reasonable breakfast;
- make sure that their uniform is washed and ironed, shoes polished;
- make sure their hair is cut, nails are kept short;
- make sure that the child takes what it needs to school: PE kit, homework, money for a charity event (and provide said money), pencil case, school planner...;
- drop off at school at the correct time or make provision and pay for before-school club (if primary age)/ensure that the child leaves home on time to get to school on time (secondary age);
- provide them with lunch money/packed lunch, travel money (if applicable);
- make yourself available to the school at a moment's notice should your child bang it's head, fall off something, vomit, punch another child;
- pick up from school at the appropriate time (if primary aged) or ensure that after school care is available and paid for;
- take your child to and pay for any after school activities such as swimming, football, Brownies/Cubs, dancing;
- ensure that they eat a hot meal in the evening;
- ensure that homework is completed to a good standard and that all that is required for the next day is available (books, money, PE kit);
- keep an eye on school shoes and clothing to make sure it is in a decent state of repair and is replaced immediately if not;
- provide an older child with credit for their mobile phone or the means by which they can 'earn' credit;
- facilitate 'play dates' and 'tea' for younger children and their friends;
- take children to parties and ensure that an appropriate present is purchased, wrapped and card written as well as hang about at said party (depends on age) and make small talk with classmate's parents;
....I could go on.

why is it automatically assumed they dont when they could

not all nrp are a waste of space

jamespir

shegirl wrote: »

Can I ask why you think the pwcs partners income should be taken into consideration?I see no need for it.To me maintenance is about taking financial responsibility for your children.It's about the kids!Why should a parents responsibility financially reduce because there is someone else living with the kids?

IT's nothing like the nrps partner being taken into consideration at all and should never be seen as such

if it was about the kids then we would not have half these post's from bitter women moaning that dad doesent pay

a pwc income should be taken into consideration as its only fair

shegirl

jamespir wrote: »

if it was about the kids then we would not have half these post's from bitter women moaning that dad doesent pay

a pwc income should be taken into consideration as its only fair

Yeah,because a woman couldn't possibly want the best for her kids and not like the fact that a so-called man shirks HIS REPONSIBILITY could she..

Don't be so god damned ridiculous.It's about responsibility and the kids.NO FATHER OR MOTHER should get away without paying for the children THEY brought into the world.What the hell makes you think it isn't about the kids and responsibility?That is an idiotic comment as far as I'm concerned.You bring kids into the world and you are responsible for them.End of.If you think it's ok for one parent not to be responsible then you are seriously lacking in morals.

Why should it be taken into consideration?There is no reason at all.The pwc having money doesn't mean the nrp no longer has responsibility fgs how god damn ridiculous!

clearingout

jamespir wrote: »

why is it automatically assumed they dont when they could

not all nrp are a waste of space

I don't assume any NRP can't or even won't do the things that I mentioned. My ex is more than capable of being a great parent and doing as much for the children as I am. He chooses not to. If you want to share care and make the argument that you (generic 'you', not you personally) too have expenses when you have the children, need a bigger house, car etc. etc. then I would ask if you're doing all of those things mentioned (and more). If you are, I have no issue with reductions in maintenance/no maintenance being paid as you're clearly doing your fair share. My experience is that the NRP won't do any of those things as he considers it isn't his responsibility. For him, 'shared care' is about me doing all of that and him having the child overnight (literally -picked up after work at 6pm and then returned at 7am the next day) and then him not having any maintenance liability.

jamespir

shegirl wrote: »

Yeah,because a woman couldn't possibly want the best for her kids and not like the fact that a so-called man shirks HIS REPONSIBILITY could she..

Don't be so god damned ridiculous.It's about responsibility and the kids.NO FATHER OR MOTHER should get away without paying for the children THEY brought into the world.What the hell makes you think it isn't about the kids and responsibility?That is an idiotic comment as far as I'm concerned.You bring kids into the world and you are responsible for them.End of.If you think it's ok for one parent not to be responsible then you are seriously lacking in morals.

Why should it be taken into consideration?There is no reason at all.The pwc having money doesn't mean the nrp no longer has responsibility fgs how god damn ridiculous!

you can be responsible without the need for money if it only means money to you then its out of greed nothing else