CSA - Income, stuggling to pay bills etc...

Murphy_Gooner

Hopefully you can get this sorted where by you able to provide.
Unfortunately you wont get alot of help or support on here as alot of people seem to troll or have had past issues where NRP have done a runner so take it out on the ones who genuinely want to pay and provide.

But before any one decides to take a snipe at this person saying his first child would be disadvantaged.
Lets not forget, the PWC could well have a new partner who is bringing in an income. So who is to say the child would be disadvantaged?
Also, its not like he is refusing to pay or provide. To say he was paying £60 per month plus other items like clothing and actually being there for the child is surely more then adequate of paying a huge chunk each month, not being able too see the child. The child then being brought up as another statistic from another broken family, probably resenting the father because he/she cant understand why daddy isnt suddenly seeing he/her anymore. All because the PWC has seen the £ signs instead of coming to an adult resolution and doing what works best for the child

shoe*diva79

Can your wife get a part time job to fit around your job? Or you take a part time job to up your income?

shoe*diva79

Murphy_Gooner wrote: »

Lets not forget, the PWC could well have a new partner who is bringing in an income. So who is to say the child would be disadvantaged?

What has this to do with anything? A NRP has a legal and MORAL obligation to provide for their child/children. Why should a new partner pay for someone elses child?

I can see why the PWC in this case would be a bit narked with £15 a week. To cover food, clothing, school trips, heating, rent, entertainment etc etc etc. i dont think it would go far. Even if the OP was buying additional items, with his income being so low I doubt he was spending a 'reasonable' amount each week topping up CM to a more realistic level.

Don't forget OP, CM set by the CSA is the MINIMUM you should pay so altho you would not be obliged to pay anything over the assessment morally it is your child from your previous realtionship who will suffer as your post does come across as bias to our new children...

Murphy_Gooner

shoe*diva79 wrote: »

What has this to do with anything? A NRP has a legal and MORAL obligation to provide for their child/children. Why should a new partner pay for someone elses child?

I can see why the PWC in this case would be a bit narked with £15 a week. To cover food, clothing, school trips, heating, rent, entertainment etc etc etc. i dont think it would go far. Even if the OP was buying additional items, with his income being so low I doubt he was spending a 'reasonable' amount each week topping up CM to a more realistic level.

Don't forget OP, CM set by the CSA is the MINIMUM you should pay so altho you would not be obliged to pay anything over the assessment morally it is your child from your previous realtionship who will suffer as your post does come across as bias to our new children...

Did i say that the new partner, if there is one, had to pay for the child which isn't biologically his?
But if i got with someone who had kids from a previous relationship, i would be taking in those kids and treating them if they were my own.
Any human being with decency would do that surely?

But that isn't the point. And the OP hasn't said he is refusing to pay maintenance, its the amount and the fact its leaving him to struggle to pay and support for his own kids.

Lets be serious here, the PWC is/will be getting Child Benefit and CTC, which could be used to go towards as you mention school trips, clothes (which OP said he was already buying before)
So its not like they would be going without or living in such sub-standard conditions.
But what you are failing to realise is that with the stupid system he is now in. His 2 children he currently has, living with him, will be the ones who have to go without the luxuries that you mention.

So what's more important?
1. He pays the £60 per month as he was before on a private arrangement and pays for fuel to pick up child and buys clothes etc and carries on having a decent, loving relationship with the child?

or

2. He pays the amounts he is through CSA, struggles to pay his bills, struggles to support his 2 children in his residence, struggles to pay for heating and also not have the money to travel to see his child like he has been and that relationship be tarnished all because the PWC decides she would like a few more pounds in Her account. And for all we know, that child might not even be bought the luxuries as you so mentioned.

shoe*diva79

Yes, you are suggesting that the new partner would be happy to pay in the absence of the NRP.

Your second paragraph 'struggle and support for his own kids' urm... The child from previous relationship is his OWN kid. Why should that child suffer because the NRP went on to have more children when he couldn't afford to support current children?

Im not saying he is unwilling to provide for his child. But £15 a week is a insult.

The NRP is also getting CTC and WTC for the children whom live with him.

Your last point is very derogatory to most PWC who have their children's best interests at heart. If the NRP thinks his child is in clothing full of holes, worn and tatty shoes, not had a haircut for ages and is starving then I suggest they contact Social Services to report the neglect. If not, then I will assume that £15 a week is going towards a well clothed, fed, warm, roof over head child.

tattycath

shoe*diva79 wrote: »

Yes, you are suggesting that the new partner would be happy to pay in the absence of the NRP.
When someone has a relationship/lives with a parent with children-it's a package deal-love me love my kids.
Your second paragraph 'struggle and support for his own kids' urm... The child from previous relationship is his OWN kid. Why should that child suffer because the NRP went on to have more children when he couldn't afford to support current children? No one said previous child should suffer, similarly neither should subsequent children.
So when a couple split up, it's okay for the pwc to go on and have more children but not the nrp? So what if anything happened to nrp (illness, demise etc) and they can't pay for previous children - thus making pwc no longer able to 'afford' subsequent children, but no doubt that's fine.

Im not saying he is unwilling to provide for his child. But £15 a week is a insult.
£15 a week more than some pwcs get though-and those nrps (who pay nothing) are the ones who get away with it.
The NRP is also getting CTC and WTC for the children whom live with him.

Your last point is very derogatory to most PWC who have their children's best interests at heart. If the NRP thinks his child is in clothing full of holes, worn and tatty shoes, not had a haircut for ages and is starving then I suggest they contact Social Services to report the neglect. If not, then I will assume that £15 a week is going towards a well clothed, fed, warm, roof over head child.

Just because a child is well clothed, fed, warm, roof over his/her head, does not mean they are being well looked after. Appearances are all well and good, there are many ways of 'not' looking after a child that isn't always immediately apparent.

tattycath

shoe*diva79 wrote: »

Can your wife get a part time job to fit around your job? Or you take a part time job to up your income?

Wouldn't any extra income be taken into consideration thus making more child support payable?

shoe*diva79

Why should a new partner pay in lieu of the natural parent? Yes, a single parent and children come as a package, but thats not a 'get out of jail free card' so to speak for the NRP to get away with not being financially responsible for his/her children. For example, if a NRP decided to start a new family despite being on a low income and providing very little financial assistance to previous children, you think they cold just say 'its okay, PWC new partner will pick up the slack'

Having more children if you cannot afford them works on both sides. A parent passing away would be a rare case and not really relevant to the OP at this time.

Yes, £15 is more then some get. Same there are so many dead beat 'dads' around with no morals eh? If you think £15 a week is an acceptable amount to provide a safe and secure environment for your child then I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree. I have been in the position to receive less then that for may years before getting a more acceptable assessment to help meet the cost of raising my child.

Your last statement, your right. However, I am talking about what money can buy, and can only assume you are talking about abuse, which the OP does not suggest is happening. A child wearing a decent standard of clothing, not underweight, living in a heated home etc shows me that money is being spent. £60 a month does not cover clothing, heating, food etc. it doesn't even cover 50% of the cost and where does the rest of the money come from? Thats right, the PWC. Or the state in the form of benefits.

Marisco

tattycath wrote: »

Wouldn't any extra income be taken into consideration thus making more child support payable?

On CSA 1 it would, and the op's CTC and WTC is also taken into account for CM payments. So not only is the PWC getting her own CTC and WTC (if working) but she also gets a slice of the NRP's.

shoe*diva79

tattycath wrote: »

Wouldn't any extra income be taken into consideration thus making more child support payable?

If he was to earn £100 a week extra then £15 (roughly at 15%) would be payable, meaning £85 a week extra into his household. If his wife was to work and support her children then that money would not be counted for CM purposes.