Do csa ask for mothers income/assets??

DeeDee74

jamespir wrote: »

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

:eek::eek: greedy to want money 2 feed cloth and keep BOTH your children??? yeah course..
the pwc is responsible for child MOST of the time if all it takes 2 keep a child is love no benefits would be payable for the children,
children cost money so it's only the pwc who should pay for this is it?

shegirl

jamespir wrote: »

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

The majority of fathers who don't pay or try getting out of it are those who don't bother with their kids.

Both parents should always be financially responsible for their kids.End of.

And how is it greed to expect a nrp to pay towards the upkeep of his own child?

BTW resident parents care for and provide for their children day in day out,some of us completely on my own.So,really,what is the nrp paying a bit of money every month?It's nothing in comparrison is it!

shegirl

DeeDee74 wrote: »

:eek::eek: greedy to want money 2 feed cloth and keep BOTH your children??? yeah course..
the pwc is responsible for child MOST of the time if all it takes 2 keep a child is love no benefits would be payable for the children,
children cost money so it's only the pwc who should pay for this is it?

Some people just don't get the responsibility do they! I've heard numerous times before from nrds 'what about the mother' well what do they think we do !!!!!!:rotfl:

clearingout

that's the problem, isn't it? damned if you do and damned if you don't...

- you don't work (as in paid work) and are reliant on benefits and maintenance, you are greedy and lazy;
- you work part-time to try and juggle the responsibility, you are still reliant on benefits and maintenance and you are still greedy and lazy;
- you work full-time, you don't need the maintenance and really should stop being so greedy and let the NRP get on with their life elsewhere. And whilst getting on with their life, the new partner will criticise your parenting, be rude about the fact you're never there for your kids 'cos you work full-time, decide what money you do and don't need, make it clear to your children that they're not welcome in their house.....
- and if you don't work/work part-time and have a new partner you're a terrible person for expecting the new partner to help finance your children;
- and if you have a new partner and work full-time, the expectation is you don't need any money whatsoever so please go and quietly die somewhere so we can forget you exist.

can't win!

shegirl

clearingout wrote: »

that's the problem, isn't it? damned if you do and damned if you don't...

- you don't work (as in paid work) and are reliant on benefits and maintenance, you are greedy and lazy;
- you work part-time to try and juggle the responsibility, you are still reliant on benefits and maintenance and you are still greedy and lazy;
- you work full-time, you don't need the maintenance and really should stop being so greedy and let the NRP get on with their life elsewhere. And whilst getting on with their life, the new partner will criticise your parenting, be rude about the fact you're never there for your kids 'cos you work full-time, decide what money you do and don't need, make it clear to your children that they're not welcome in their house.....
- and if you don't work/work part-time and have a new partner you're a terrible person for expecting the new partner to help finance your children;
- and if you have a new partner and work full-time, the expectation is you don't need any money whatsoever so please go and quietly die somewhere so we can forget you exist.

can't win!

Yep.

Personally,I find if quite disgusting that there are people who believe if the pwc has money or a partner with money that the nrp should have financial responsibility reduced.Seriously,is that what we want in society-it being considered right that responsibility shouldn't have to be taken for children brought into the world?People may aswell go round having kids willy nilly and not bothering with them then

jamespir

DeeDee74 wrote: »

:eek::eek: greedy to want money 2 feed cloth and keep BOTH your children??? yeah course..
the pwc is responsible for child MOST of the time if all it takes 2 keep a child is love no benefits would be payable for the children,
children cost money so it's only the pwc who should pay for this is it?

your presuming that based on your situation and why is it theres never any posts from male pwc complaining bout nrp's ?

because to men its not about the money thats a trait only women seem to have

jamespir

shegirl wrote: »

Yep.

Personally,I find if quite disgusting that there are people who believe if the pwc has money or a partner with money that the nrp should have financial responsibility reduced.Seriously,is that what we want in society-it being considered right that responsibility shouldn't have to be taken for children brought into the world?People may aswell go round having kids willy nilly and not bothering with them then

so why should the pwc be allowed to get an income of her own money from benefits plus money given to her by a new partner and then expect csa on top

but the nrp should be left in finacial hardship


none of you seem to be able to answer that
plus the fact if the nrp's finiacial postion changes he has to inform the csa so if he wins money then that gets taken in to account

if the pwc wins money it dont matter its unfair to nrp the current system

shegirl

jamespir wrote: »

your presuming that based on your situation and why is it theres never any posts from male pwc complaining bout nrp's ?

because to men its not about the money thats a trait only women seem to have

You really are becoming quite ridiculous now! Not only have you decided only women would be interested in receiving money legally owed to their children and that women are money grabbing itches, but you're also failing to realise that there are considerably less male pwc than female pwc.

jamespir

shegirl wrote: »

You really are becoming quite ridiculous now! Not only have you decided only women would be interested in receiving money legally owed to their children and that women are money grabbing itches, but you're also failing to realise that there are considerably less male pwc than female pwc.

i do realise there is more females than men its still doesent change the fact women are quite vocal about their lack of csa payments and then a load of other women automatically jump in to attack the men without even knowing him

shell_542

jamespir wrote: »

so why should the pwc be allowed to get an income of her own money from benefits plus money given to her by a new partner and then expect csa on top

but the nrp should be left in finacial hardship


none of you seem to be able to answer that
plus the fact if the nrp's finiacial postion changes he has to inform the csa so if he wins money then that gets taken in to account

if the pwc wins money it dont matter its unfair to nrp the current system

That's not strictly true jamespir. If the NRP won a sum of money, the CSA couldn't lay claim to 15/20/25% of it to give to the PWC. They would only be able to include interest on capital over £66,000. The only income that is automatically taken into account is earned income.

There are a lot of assumptions being made by both sides here, ie. only female PWCs would chase the NRP, not the other way around. That isn't true. There are more and more male PWCs nowadays, and they are beginning to use forums more often and I can think of one regular poster on another forum who is quite vocal about how awful he thinks it is that his NRP ex doesn't provide financially for his children. And so he should.

But it isn't true that in all situations, the PWC does the day to day providing on an emotional, physical and financial level all the time either. There are increasing cases of shared contact time, there are plenty of NRPs who have weekly overnight contact and longer periods in holidays where THEY are the ones caring for the children and providing for them. In these cases, the PWC is sharing the responsibilities with their exes, not doing the daily grind themselves all the time. The title "PWC" does not automatically mean absent NRP. Plus there are lots of NRPs who WANT to share more responsibilities for the children, want to have them more and are obstructed from.

As much as forums can be great for support and advice, I personally think that they can sometimes have a negative effect of whirring up anger and making someone think they are being reasonable because one other person of the same mindset agrees with them.

This thread has spiraled out of control unnecessarily.