Do csa ask for mothers income/assets??

anguk

shegirl wrote: »

Thing is,if it was regarded in working tax credit would it not also end up having to be taken into consideration for things such as child tax credit aswell?Meaning that the child would end up no better off and would not be benefitting so much from the money from the nrp?I can see where you're coming from and understand your thought on it,but it would end up with the child not benefitting wouldn't it.

But at the moment the child is benefiting twice, both from the NRP and from the state? If both parents were still together tax credits would take into account all income from both parents so why does this change when the parents divorce?

If a single parent is receiving benefits any maintenance they receive is disregarded but if a couple are receiving benefits all income is regarded. Why do children of a single parent need more money than children who's parents are still together?

I also think the CSA are a big cause of arguments and problems. NRPs who are happy and willing to pay maintenance for their children seem to get hammered yet they don't seem to do enough to make non-paying NRPs pay. So you get paying NRPs angry that they're getting a bad deal and PWC angry that their exes are paying nothing.

I've never had any dealings with the CSA but reading the posts on here it seems to me that it's split into two camps, paying NRPs who are angry with how much they pay and the way they're treat by the CSA, and PWC who are angry because their exes don't pay or play the system to they pay as little as possible.

anguk

shegirl wrote: »

Have to say though,the thing that really gets me about any conversations regarding maintenance is when people come out with things such as 'why should I have to pay the pwc and fund their lifestyle','pwcs are just money grabbers expecting money or more money'.People do seem to forget it's about the kids,and just look at the other parent thinking it's about them, taking on a bitterness towards either parent and,to me,that's what causes the biggest anger with regard to maintenance.

It's all quite sad really.

In an ideal world that's all it would be about but it is true, in some cases, that maintenance does also fund the PWC's lifestyle too, maintenance isn't just spent on the children it's put into the household pot to provide for all. It's normally those cases that we hear about, just as it's normally the cases where the PWC receives nothing or very little that we hear about on here. The very nature of forums means that we don't hear about the successful cases where both the NRP and PWC are both happy with the situation.

shegirl

anguk wrote: »

But at the moment the child is benefiting twice, both from the NRP and from the state? If both parents were still together tax credits would take into account all income from both parents so why does this change when the parents divorce?

If a single parent is receiving benefits any maintenance they receive is disregarded but if a couple are receiving benefits all income is regarded. Why do children of a single parent need more money than children who's parents are still together?

I also think the CSA are a big cause of arguments and problems. NRPs who are happy and willing to pay maintenance for their children seem to get hammered yet they don't seem to do enough to make non-paying NRPs pay. So you get paying NRPs angry that they're getting a bad deal and PWC angry that their exes are paying nothing.

I've never had any dealings with the CSA but reading the posts on here it seems to me that it's split into two camps, paying NRPs who are angry with how much they pay and the way they're treat by the CSA, and PWC who are angry because their exes don't pay or play the system to they pay as little as possible.

You do have a point with it being disregarded there.I guess the way I look at it is,if you pay for a child you want them to benefit from it and if it's money they'd get whether you paid it or not (because somebody else would) it just may not seem right -in one sense-because they're not getting anything additional,but then there is the other sense that you've mentioned.But then there's the fact there should be a desire to give your children the best you can in life,so having that money on top would be part of that,but as you say it may not be the case if they were together,but if together there would be two incomes anyway,which would cancel it out as there would likely be more in the household income anyway,along with having both parents.hmmm

It's all a big muddle of things that go round and round isn't it?:rotfl:It's all madness,just focus on the kids,it's the only way to stay sane:rotfl:

shegirl

anguk wrote: »

In an ideal world that's all it would be about but it is true, in some cases, that maintenance does also fund the PWC's lifestyle too, maintenance isn't just spent on the children it's put into the household pot to provide for all. It's normally those cases that we hear about, just as it's normally the cases where the PWC receives nothing or very little that we hear about on here. The very nature of forums means that we don't hear about the successful cases where both the NRP and PWC are both happy with the situation.

Thing about funding the pwcs lifestyle though,is how on earth do people know this?Ok,I'll admit there are some pwcs who provide naff all for their kids,but how do people know what money the pwc is using for herself and what is being used elsewhere?I take it,in many cases,as assumption bred from bitterness (I could be wrong,and it's not always the case I'll agree).How could they possibly know what money is being spent where?

Ellejmorgan

My ex owes 4 years money and aggreed to start paying..In 6 weeks I have got a grand total of £40 that's for 2 kids..
Even if i go to CSA it will be a battle to get anything..

All these women with reasonable exes who help out and pay massive amounts don't realise how lucky they are..
My ex has a contact order for one of the kids..his contact was for 3 hours per month minimum at our own arrangement, he was offered to have the kids for half of every school holiday,I offered to meet him halfway and help him with the diesel if he was skint, he's not seen them at all and has broken his order...Can't ever get him to do the right thing..

shegirl

Ellejmorgan wrote: »

My ex owes 4 years money and aggreed to start paying..In 6 weeks I have got a grand total of £40 that's for 2 kids..
Even if i go to CSA it will be a battle to get anything..

All these women with reasonable exes who help out and pay massive amounts don't realise how lucky they are..
My ex has a contact order for one of the kids..his contact was for 3 hours per month minimum at our own arrangement, he was offered to have the kids for half of every school holiday,I offered to meet him halfway and help him with the diesel if he was skint, he's not seen them at all and has broken his order...Can't ever get him to do the right thing..

I do wonder if the reason some get so narky about it and think the pwc must be doing something underhanded,is because they are/or are with decent nrps who do provide and see their kids,or nrps who try their damndest and are hurt by not being with their kids so much and, therefore, can't understand,and possibly find it hard to digest,that there are some who just walk away not giving a t*ss and trying to avoid everything?

13Kent

That is certainly my husbands position, we would love to see his children more often and be a bigger part of their lives, our children love them too, sadly we don't get that opportunity.

FBaby

I am a very strong advocate to the position that children should be the responsibility of their two parents, the ones who decided that they should be born, or at least accepted them as the persons they would care for when they were born, not step-parents.

Of course step-parents accept to take on step-children when they start a relationship with their parent, but it is not the same level of responsibility, at least not in my eyes.

On that account, I strongly believe that step-parents, either nrpp or pwcp income shouldn't be taken into account UNLESS, their own parents have chosen not to work in which case, it should be with the approval that the step-parent supports not only them, but the step-children (which is the case already with the pwcp in any case).

I think as much as possible, parental responsibility should remain as much as possible as to what it was before the separation. That means that if a nrp salary goes up, of course he should contribute more for his kids as surely, that is what they would have done if they were still a couple with the mum.

Saying that, I do agree that nrps should be entitled to more control of how maintenance is paid. I find it terrible that an nrp can be made to pay £100s a month but can't say a thing how the children should benefit. I personally think that it would be totally acceptable to request, when there is some doubt that maintenance is not spent on the kids as expected (ie, usually with high maintenance payments), a breakdown of costs via csa.

As to saying that pwc salary should be taken into consideration to establish maintenance payment, I find this ludicrious. Why should an nrp pay less in relation to his earning because of the pwc income? Surely in a 'normal' family, a child with both parents working, would just end up benefiting from the higher joint income. It wouldn't be a case of saying 'oh mum is going back to work now, so Daddy will be able to spend less on you and more on himself and whatever else he sees fit'.

shegirl

FBaby wrote: »

I am a very strong advocate to the position that children should be the responsibility of their two parents, the ones who decided that they should be born, or at least accepted them as the persons they would care for when they were born, not step-parents.

Of course step-parents accept to take on step-children when they start a relationship with their parent, but it is not the same level of responsibility, at least not in my eyes.

On that account, I strongly believe that step-parents, either nrpp or pwcp income shouldn't be taken into account UNLESS, their own parents have chosen not to work in which case, it should be with the approval that the step-parent supports not only them, but the step-children (which is the case already with the pwcp in any case).

I think as much as possible, parental responsibility should remain as much as possible as to what it was before the separation. That means that if a nrp salary goes up, of course he should contribute more for his kids as surely, that is what they would have done if they were still a couple with the mum.

Saying that, I do agree that nrps should be entitled to more control of how maintenance is paid. I find it terrible that an nrp can be made to pay £100s a month but can't say a thing how the children should benefit. I personally think that it would be totally acceptable to request, when there is some doubt that maintenance is not spent on the kids as expected (ie, usually with high maintenance payments), a breakdown of costs via csa.

As to saying that pwc salary should be taken into consideration to establish maintenance payment, I find this ludicrious. Why should an nrp pay less in relation to his earning because of the pwc income? Surely in a 'normal' family, a child with both parents working, would just end up benefiting from the higher joint income. It wouldn't be a case of saying 'oh mum is going back to work now, so Daddy will be able to spend less on you and more on himself and whatever else he sees fit'.

I think the only thing I disagee with there is the NRPP income.They don't pay for the child,but it is taken into consideration.BUT the reason it is taken into consideration is because on the old system there are deductions made for rent,set living costs (which would be pretty much doubled for a couple),pension and council tax and then maintenance is worked out from what is left.

If they didn't know the NRPP had an income themselves then they'd be deducting full rent or mortgage,full council tax,double the living costs etc from the NRPs income despite the fact the NRP won't be paying all of that themselves as it will be split.It would leave many kids getting naff all from their non resident parents if they didn't take the fact the NRPs partner had an income too,so that wouldn't be fair.I guess they had to think about considering it due to the deductions made.That way they can look at the costs they need to deduct but only make partial deductions because they know damn well the nrp isn't paying for everything for themselves leaving them with little or no money.

So,in that respect I don't find that unfair at all.Why should a non resident parent get away with paying hardly anything or nothing at all,in some cases,because they're taken to be soley financially providing for themselves and a new partner when,infact,they are not?

fannyanna

I think the current system is the fairest.

Using a % of income seems to be the most transparent approach. The NRP pays the set % regardless of how much the PWC earns.

The only thing that I find unfair is that child tax credits are counted as income.