living and paying maintenance....

kevin137

jarhead66 wrote: »

It was april 2010 that benefit disrecard was introduced, I don't know why the CSA did not introduce CSA3 at the same time or transfered CSA1 cases to CSA2!! You will get some single P.W.C. on benefits having kids with different fathers so that they can get the maxium amount of benefits, there will be those of you who don't think that sort of thing dosn't happen!!

On a different note, slightly, the benefit system, while a necessary evil needed in the UK, does not work with the CSA as it appears to many NRP's that they are just cash cows to fund single mothers who choose to abuse the system...

Now i know this is something that will always cause dissent with some, but until 2010, it was taken in leu of the benefit that you where entitled to... To which i agree to a point.

Would a system that meant it could be taken into consideration as income like CTC or CTC but no other benefit seem a fairer system...??? Those benefits are income based and should have CSA taken into consideration in my opinion...!

jarhead66

Intresting point that if both the P.W.C. and the N.R.P. have to agree to a private agreement, I think that it should be left down to the N.R.P. as they are the paying customer/ party

Plus i doubt that any P.W.C. who is getting full benefits plus a whacking maintenance payment will opt for a more fairer agreement with the N.R.P.
Also remember that some P.W.C's use the CSA as a means of destroying their Ex's life's and use it as a form of harrassment under the guise of the welfare of their children!!
As you can guess i have had a very rough ride from both my Ex and the CSA, I have not had any contact with my kids for over 11 yrs now, once i started paying maintenance i could not afford to take my kids out so my Ex said whats the point of seeing them if you can't afford to treat them, and so she stopped contact, because of the amount of maintenace i was paying i could not afford to goto court ( she got legal aid!!) so when i asked the CSA if they could drop my payments so that i could try for access, i was told that the welfare and welbeing of the children was of no concern of them just how much maintenance they could collect, You go to admit that's one hell of a stitch up by both parties, A big thanks from the bottom of my heart to all the CSA employees at Falkirk for doing a great job in helping my Ex muck mine and my kids lives!! thanks!!

Bluemeanie_2

jarhead66 wrote: »

Intresting point that if both the P.W.C. and the N.R.P. have to agree to a private agreement, I think that it should be left down to the N.R.P. as they are the paying customer/ party

Plus i doubt that any P.W.C. who is getting full benefits plus a whacking maintenance payment will opt for a more fairer agreement with the N.R.P.
Also remember that some P.W.C's use the CSA as a means of destroying their Ex's life's and use it as a form of harrassment under the guise of the welfare of their children!!
As you can guess i have had a very rough ride from both my Ex and the CSA, I have not had any contact with my kids for over 11 yrs now, once i started paying maintenance i could not afford to take my kids out so my Ex said whats the point of seeing them if you can't afford to treat them, and so she stopped contact, because of the amount of maintenace i was paying i could not afford to goto court ( she got legal aid!!) so when i asked the CSA if they could drop my payments so that i could try for access, i was told that the welfare and welbeing of the children was of no concern of them just how much maintenance they could collect, You go to admit that's one hell of a stitch up by both parties, A big thanks from the bottom of my heart to all the CSA employees at Falkirk for doing a great job in helping my Ex muck mine and my kids lives!! thanks!!

That is what I don't like about the PWC keeping all benefits and maintenance on top. For a start it means the taxpayer is still paying for everyone else's kids instead of the people who chose to have them and secondly they are not counted as income when working out the PWC benefits, but they are not counted as a discounted outgoing when working out household income for the NRP. Seems a double stitch up.

And then in defence of PWC's I don't feel it's fair for non-biological children in their household to be used for discount, however though, in that case, their childrens tax credits shouldn't be touched. I just don't see what the answer is!

I do think they should have more enforcement powers though. And more recognition of shared care, I don't just mean 50/50 like CSA3 will recognise, but the beef I have is, when you have two stepkids like in my case, the minute you have them overnight, even just for 1 night, you need a bigger house. Me and hubby couldn't just decide to move to a one bed flat to save costs without giving up seeing the children overnight. So the discount for overnights should be higher, as we still have to run same sized houses, we pay for all their food and clothes, trips etc when they are with us, but she gets all the CTC, CB and maintenance, as the benefits aren't pro rated.

clearingout

you're seeing it from the point of view as a person who has a new partner though, aren't you? as soon as the majority PWC move in with a new person, tax credits will reduce and if the PWC and her partner work, more than likely fall away all together. Two person households have the potential to minimally bring in two minimum full-time wages, plus receive top ups for any children they may be responsible for. A PWC on their own, even when working, is likely to be reliant on tax credits and will be the person responsible for paying childcare and all other child related expenses on a day to day basis. A single PWC can only bring in one full-time minimum wage which is widely recognised as not being 'liveable' in it's own right and as such, surely requires the full entitlement to top up if the children aren't going to be disadvantaged?

It is a huge worry to me that shared care becomes recongised more from a financial perspective - many separated couples have huge disparities in their incomes and taking away the 'right' to maintenance where care is shared is going to leave some people in desperate circumstances. When I shared care with my ex, he earned about 4 times what I did and had a new partner who worked full time and had the benefit of £20k a year from my ex on top. He paid nothing at all towards childcare (even when the children were in childcare on 'his' time) and it was me who paid for haircuts, school uniform etc. A no maintenance rule for me would have meant I had to give up my children entirely and put them in my ex's care because I couldn't have kept a roof over their heads. That's three children under the age of 5 who would lose contact with their mother because my ex has shown time and time again that he has no respect whatsoever for the children's relationship with me. I know this is what happens to some NPRs under the current system but I can see this shifting the balance of power the other way. It's not going to make things right, is it?

Bluemeanie_2

Well from my point of view, the lack of shared care being recognised is certainly not fair, she only has a 3 bed house despite having two more kids by her new Boyfriend, so technically her house is a lot cheaper to run per head. And they don't pay any childcare or anything like that. I just don't feel shared care is recognised enough. You are not given enough of a "discount", considering the PWC get's to keep all the CB and CTC. in our case "our PWC" get's £50 extra for one day (counting just the CB, CTC and maintence) (Us 3 nights, her 4). I know kids are expensive, but if you can't feed and cloth them for that a day, you in desperate need of this website! We provide the School uniform, food, normal clothes etc why they are with us, so she only genuinely has to provide half of the stuff, bar one day, which she gets a lot for.

If it wasn't for the fact they are kids (as opposed to an object) we would have to reduce the amounts of nights we have them, as in our case, as we have them so close to half, without any benefits and with losing a chunk of his wages it's getting nearly unaffordable.
But then on the flip side you do not want a PWC reducing the number of overnights to get more money.

It seems CSA1 was to complicated and didn't suit many to work out household income and the like, CSA2 has it's faults that don't suit some and I'm sure CSA3 will be the same.

I just wish when people had kids and they split up, things could be sorted properly, to recognise these kinds of things within their own situations that is fair and reasonable to all without the need for a government organisation.

But I will keep dreaming!!!

clearingout

the problem is we have a one size fits all solution to what is a very individual problem! there are so many variables and so many possible ways of manipulating figures and situations....I can't imagine the size of the handbook required nor the hours of training that would be needed for a system that considered individual situations. And just imagine the appeal process!

Perhaps the solution is some kind of compulsory separated parenting course whereby you sign up, prior to having children, what will happen in a worse case scenario and then are forced to stick with that! If that were brokered by people who have been there, done that, it would force people to do the right thing at a time in their lives when they can't imagine they would ever be in that situation - I know my ex would never have described himself as the kind of man who slaps pregnant women, has affairs, or who takes several holidays abroad a year whilst the mother of his children struggles to keep the house warm if he were forced to confront his reasonable self at the point of his unreasonableness, we might eliminate all some of the issues

Bluemeanie_2

clearingout wrote: »

the problem is we have a one size fits all solution to what is a very individual problem! there are so many variables and so many possible ways of manipulating figures and situations....I can't imagine the size of the handbook required nor the hours of training that would be needed for a system that considered individual situations. And just imagine the appeal process!

Perhaps the solution is some kind of compulsory separated parenting course whereby you sign up, prior to having children, what will happen in a worse case scenario and then are forced to stick with that! If that were brokered by people who have been there, done that, it would force people to do the right thing at a time in their lives when they can't imagine they would ever be in that situation - I know my ex would never have described himself as the kind of man who slaps pregnant women, has affairs, or who takes several holidays abroad a year whilst the mother of his children struggles to keep the house warm if he were forced to confront his reasonable self at the point of his unreasonableness, we might eliminate all some of the issues

I know it sounds far fetched and regimental but I do feel for the sake of children something needs to give. And certainly not just in the case of separated parents! Something like a pre-nuptial agreement or the like. Especially now a lot of people do not get married now so there is no divorce court to assist in helping sort financial situations. Although that does not always help, I have heard of PWC accepting lower equity on the promise of maintenance for the kids, the NRP goes self employed etc and gets out of paying, evading CSA etc and court can't do anything and on the flip side I've heard of NRP's giving all equity in lieu or effectively paying a lump sum of CS etc then a year later paying again through the CSA as they sit separately.

I just don't know the solution!
Generally I think a straight percentage works well (in theory), my personal faults with CSA2 are taking into account other kids that aren't bio kids, same with CTC and once you go over 2 nights a week, not enough recognition of shared care.

My big fault with any CSA 1,2,3 or any subsequent ones is the lack of enforcement powers, such as in your case CO and a few others we hear about.

kingfisherblue

jarhead66 wrote: »

Intresting point that if both the P.W.C. and the N.R.P. have to agree to a private agreement, I think that it should be left down to the N.R.P. as they are the paying customer/ party

Plus i doubt that any P.W.C. who is getting full benefits plus a whacking maintenance payment will opt for a more fairer agreement with the N.R.P.

I agreed to a private agreement with my ex, who then decided not to pay as he had run up debts with his new lady friend. He left in March, paid upto August, then stopped paying because his new partner wanted everything in their home to be brand new - and she had given up work as soon as she found she was pregnant.

I had no choice but to go to the CSA, and even then, it took four and a half years, a court appearance by my ex, and a deduction of earnings order to get any payment from him.

Incidentally, I am on full benefits because I care for our severely disabled child. I have always allowed my ex to see the children whenever he wants, and generally he sees them for a few hours most Saturdays. He rarely has them overnight, and never at my request - it always has to be on his terms. He will only look after our youngest child overnight (now age 12), and never our disabled son. His mother and father disagreed with this so much that they kicked up a real stink with him, so now, when he has the youngest, he stays at his parents' house and our disabled child stays too - with nana and grandad looking after him overnight, including nappy changes and feeds!

I would never return to a private agreement because he has proven himself to be unreliable at paying any maintenace. He even told the courts that he paid the money directly to the children, as he didn't believe that they would receive anything for the money otherwise. Needless to say, my children did not receive the money directly at all. The occasional Happy Meal doesn't count!

Although there are many unfair PWCs out there, there are also a number of NRPs who decide to avoid paying if they can.

jarhead66

I agree that not all N.R.P's would stick to a private agreement, but i believe that alot of genuine N.R.P's would stick to a private agreement. Alot of people just don't understand how much being stuck on CSA1 can control your life!! Such as my G/F can only stay so many nights a week at my place, Because CSA1 has overtime taken into account then if you take your leave you will end up owing somebody as you can't get the overtime if you are off work, so i find it better not to use all my leave and stay out of debt.

SingleSue

I must admit, after a shakey start (where he was telling everyone he was supporting our children but wasn't....by goodness did he get an ear bashing when his mum found out the truth), my ex husband has never missed a payment on our private agreement. Ok, we could possibly get a little more via the CSA but at what price to our happiness and wellbeing (including the boys)

It works for us, keeps our relationship civil and the channels open....now if only I could convince him to see his children more (currently approx 3 hours a year..yes a year!), things would be very tickety boo.