csa grrrrrr

FBaby

The problem the way I see is that you consider your household as a 'normal' one (by normal I mean not reformed) where it is totally accepted that one of the couple (usually the man) goes to work and earns the most income to support his wife and children. Looking at it this way, you are doing nothing different than many 'normal' family do, yet don't get the same advantages.

The way I look at it is that once you reform a family, these 'rules' don't apply any longer because each parent is responsible on a priority to his/her own children. On this basis, it is you and your ex responsible for your children, not your partner and if your children are not enjoying the lifestyle you wish they had, it is because their dad doesn't provide to them and you only work part-time.

I see it from both side. My partner earns a decent salary and could probably support me and the children if I chose to go part-time (which I would love) or even stop working, but I consider that this is not an option because I am mainly responsible for my children, even more so because my ex doesn't pay any maintenance for our children. My children enjoy a nice lifestyle because I work full-time, they wouldn't if I didn't, but that would be my choice by not working full-time.

My ex new partner however has the opposite view. She expected her first husband to support her and she expects the same with my ex, that includes supporting her children. As a result, my ex is left with no money to support his own children with me (well that is except at Christmas when every year, he suddenly seem to come into money to spoil them and of course pass as wonderfu dad, but that's another subject!). I know that their view is that because my partner and I earn well and can offer a good lifestyle to my children, it is a logical choice to prioritise my ex's income (as she doesn't work) for her and her children.

FBaby

By the way, just to say that my partner doesn't have children BUT...he gives his mum £300 a month. It started as a repayment for a loan but even when the loan was repaid, he continued to pay because as he says, he wants the best for his mum and his knows that money makes a difference to her life. I don't expect that payment to stop anytime soon. Do I resent him for it? Not one second. For one, it is his money to do what he wants with, and second, as a good earner, I totally understand that he would want his mum to enjoy a better life than what she would have on her small pension.

Of course, I do understand that it is different for the fact that money goes to her directly, no to his ex to support his mum, but this was to illustrate the matter of a reduced household income due to maintenance payments.

wayne0

his_wife wrote: »

never thought of it that way, but, since for some people it wont be closing, would, it not be, just a continuation. I suppose 13 weeks breathing space would make a great deal of difference for us

dont get me wrong... im fully agreed with the fact a child is a child (the un states a child is UNDER 18 - even the EU states the same,., but our govt say 20 now? lol) ...

but yes... 13 weeks is better than nothing... but if they are resuming payments from 2 weeks after a closure, perhaps you should point this out to them (or is the 13 weeks rule before reopening a case a myth)

wayne0

FBaby wrote: »

By the way, just to say that my partner doesn't have children BUT...he gives his mum £300 a month. It started as a repayment for a loan but even when the loan was repaid, he continued to pay because as he says, he wants the best for his mum .

BUT if you couldnt afford it, he could stop the payments!!!

it is his choice... its not like that is it. and from his wife's point of view....

this is exactly what i mean...

MANY families live below "poverty line" because of CSA payments... and nobody takes interest into that...

perhaps we should put a petition in for a full review of the benefits system to actually take the CM payments into account, or at least do a simple bit of maths (a like housing benefit ETC) to say a family of XXX needs XXX amount to live on a week... if the TOTAL income is below this then they pay £5.

if it is above this, they pay £5 plus 15% of that additional income...

dont you believe this would be a fairer system...?

FBaby

But it is also many people's choice to work part-time, have more children, go back to studying....

It is rare that couples who both work full-time and don't have more children struggle financially even when paying maintenance.

wayne0

but what if the part time work is all the work they can get, or the other person is not capable of working ETC?

i worked every hour i could to support my family...

this includes clothing my son with clothes that fit him etc... which i cannot afford to even do this now... and my ex doesnt spend the money sent to her on him either...

FBaby

If you are only working part-time, then of course your diposable income is going to be reduced. Surely it wouldn't be right that you could work part-time and still enjoy the same lifestyle than if you worked full-time, otherwise no one would. But in this case, it is not the fault of having to pay maintenance that is the problem, but still the fact that the family doesn't work enough hours and increasing income should be the focus rather than looking at way to reduce maintenance.

The issue of maintenance not spent on the child is another matter, but from experience here, nrps who complain about that have often shown to forget about a number of costs directly associated with a resident child.

wayne0

FBaby wrote: »

forget about a number of costs directly associated with a resident child.

so 40 hrs a week... you think i should personally work more hours? these are 8 hour shifts, on my feet for the whole time...

the two days off i see my son / kids at home...

im saying that sometimes not everybody can get more hours... there arent always jobs etc...

also concerning partner working,.. who would care for kids whilst she worked for min wage, we wouldnt be able to afford childcare costs... it would cost more for childcare than she would earn...

and also CSA stated if i cut my hours so i could care for kids whilst she worked, they would see it as depriving myself of income.

the "costs involving resident child" well, the csa seem to forget about these costs with the two i have at home...

FBaby

But that's my point. I am assuming the children you refer are children you chose to have to together. If you hadn't, your wife could work full-time and you would have no problem paying maintenance.

My partner and I decided not to have children together in the end and work full-time, so we are ultimately doing fine. If we'd gone ahead and have a child, we would have been seriously squeezed and would have had to make some significant changes to our lifestyle.

My ex and partner decided to have another child together despite already struggling financially and already having 4 children between them. Not surprisingly they are struggling even more and as a result pay no maintenance, but I don't feel sorry for them because it was their choice to choose to enjoy extending their family and have a baby together over being more financially comfortable.

his_wife

shegirl, you can claim wtax and child credits up to 40000 a year, taking off csa payments yes, we would be entitled, we would fall into that catagory.

My ex husband gives me 19 a wk csa, he will not support my four children, he has a new life now, his words not mine.. So if he wont support them, my now husband supports his child, who helps with mine??

I dont qualify for tax credits as we earn over that on top,,,, i am loosing cb for the same reason, but going by what you say, i have to work full time, i do 30 hours a week, no more are available, so please tell me how i support my children on that!!!

If i could do more i would!!

My and my husband chose not to have a child together because of the children between us, and the equations of money etc.

I have never been work shy, even after a major op last year and told i needed six months off work, i was back after three wks, due to the fact i dont get paid if i dont work.

So going on the basis of what you say, i shall apply for tax credits etc, as my children are not my present husbands responsibility, and i am the one to support them, i cant support them on my wage, i have no speciallist skills, so am only ever going to earn minimum wage!

I have never asked my present husband for help in my childrens clothing, xmas birthdays etc,,,,but based on his income, i loose.