paying csa until aged 20???

shoe*diva79

Bluemeanie wrote: »

My Husband and I will go to prison before we subsidise her household past the age of 18.

Does the QC still live at home? If so, surely your husband is supporting his child through education?

Marisco

shoe*diva79 wrote: »

I think its really sad that some parents find the idea of supporting their child through further education to get a better job/lifestyle etc so horrifying.

I don't think that NRP's do find supporting their child through education, so what is wrong in giving the money to the "child" direct? We shelled out over £1000 for oh's daughter to get a flat, no problem. There would be no way on god's earth we'd have put that into the ex's household!

Without going into the nuts and bolts, suffice to say the money would have been totally wasted on rubbish. I don't think most folk mind subsidising the "child" at all, what most would object to, I should imagine, is subsidising the ex's lifestyle.

his_wife

i think every parent want to support their child/ren, however, most dont want to support the exes home or lifestyle. Our sd is doing a first year course, still, three years later, has she has dropped out time and time again, however, my husband, still has to pay for her , yet her mother doesnt contribute anything towards her upkeep, as she gets benefits, and credits to cover that, hence her still doing a first year college course at almost 19.

Bluemeanie_2

missbunbury wrote: »

I've seen you say this before, and it always makes me think "well, you won't, will you, it's just your husband who is liable to pay, not you." I always wonder about the thinking processes of people who would rather lose all their income (by going to prison) rather than some of their income (by paying maintenance.)

Fair cop it will only technically be him! I'll stop putting both of us and just him. Some principles are worth fighting for, making the stance. If ALL parents had an obligation to support their offspring in a dictated way, to the age of 20 then fine. But why when the parents are split up does the government dictate to 20? Can't we twist this discrimination into human rights or something?

We have not now, nor will ever have a problem with him paying CSA until 18 (the end of the school year they turn 18, his Son's bday is Jan). N.B. I say "we" as technically my money, one way or the other gets factored in to our household. But we will not subsidise her household beyond this. This does not mean that we would not directly give his kids money for various things.

Unfortunately the government will back us in to a corner, as the only way we are going to get around this legitimately is open another business, take a business loan out and make a loss for 2 years - thus ensuring a nil assessment. Shame it comes to this. But I resent the discrimination against split up parents and discrimination. Is it 16 that non split up parents have to support their kids too? What happens if a pair of non separated parents throw their child out of home at 16 and leaves them to stand on their own two feet? Do they have to pay CSA to the child to ages of 20 if they stay in full time education? NO. Not that I'm aware of.

Bluemeanie_2

Marisco wrote: »

I don't think that NRP's do find supporting their child through education, so what is wrong in giving the money to the "child" direct? We shelled out over £1000 for oh's daughter to get a flat, no problem. There would be no way on god's earth we'd have put that into the ex's household!

Without going into the nuts and bolts, suffice to say the money would have been totally wasted on rubbish. I don't think most folk mind subsidising the "child" at all, what most would object to, I should imagine, is subsidising the ex's lifestyle.

That's my point. I'm not saying we'd cut all financial ties with his kids at 18. But We will no longer subsidise his ex household.

PreludeForTimeFeelers

The '20' thing will kick in when the new scheme launches, as the legislation is tied in (this will be before the end of this year).

his_wife

prelude spoke to csa today, and they cant bring the "20" thing in till they get new computer system to trial it, they are not getting computer system in till january the earliest, and only then will they be told , as to , how it will apply and who it will apply to

his_wife

oh and the legislation hasnt been passed yet

shoe*diva79

Marisco wrote: »

I don't think that NRP's do find supporting their child through education, so what is wrong in giving the money to the "child" direct? We shelled out over £1000 for oh's daughter to get a flat, no problem. There would be no way on god's earth we'd have put that into the ex's household!

Without going into the nuts and bolts, suffice to say the money would have been totally wasted on rubbish. I don't think most folk mind subsidising the "child" at all, what most would object to, I should imagine, is subsidising the ex's lifestyle.

If the child lives away from the RP in uni halls or whatever then fair enough, however, if they still live at home then what happens?

I guess every case has its own individual problems and having been both RP and a NRPP I can see both sides, but would never have begrudged money going into my step children's household if it meant they could complete further education with minimal debt.

PreludeForTimeFeelers

his_wife wrote: »

prelude spoke to csa today, and they cant bring the "20" thing in till they get new computer system to trial it, they are not getting computer system in till january the earliest, and only then will they be told , as to , how it will apply and who it will apply to

From the House of Lords conversations the other day, the new system will be launched in December. That's when the legislation will come in, which also encompasses the '20' for old and new rules too. Staff are currently being advised not to discuss the 'child turns 19/child turns 20' with clients, until it's closer to the time.