csa grrrrrr

wayne0

FBaby wrote: »

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.

ok, i realise your a PWC... so i let most of these comments go over my head... but~:

"
Child maintenance is regular, reliable financial support that helps towards a child's everyday living costs. The parent without the main day-to-day care of the child pays child maintenance to the other parent.
Child maintenance can make a real difference to children and give them the best start in life as it can help pay for things like clothing, food or other essentials. It could also help keep both parents involved with their children’s lives.
"

now the fact is... child maintenance is one of the reasons im finding it difficault to be part of my sons life...

not only that,,, should my wife leave me because the the crap she has to put up with over all of this CSA... she would go home to indonesia, and would result in me loosing contact with my other two kids...

so tell me. child maintenance via the CSA works?...

the CSA is so out of touch (and even most PWC would agree with that) that its possible for most mothers who are vindictive to use it as a weapon...

and it actually encourages women to get pregnant and leave the father knowing they will be left with this huge bill from the csa which they will get to keep 100% of, on top of their benefits..

just like any other benefit - CSA should be deductable from benefits - and be taken into account for both the giver and reciever...

his_wife

wayno i think the whole system needs a complete rethink, i am not saying neglect the first family to support the first. for eg,,, why should sd miss out, but then why should my children miss out either. Since their father pays minimum.

The cb, both parents in household can earn 40000 each and wont loose it, but as soon as one earns over, gone!

I am always going to loose, i accept that, but it isnt my childrens fault so why should they loose.

I am both a pwc and a nrpp so yes i see both sides of the coin. Whatever, i spend on my children, i spend on sd. Does my ex h do the same no,,,, he gives my children 20 each for christmas, as they have a "NEW" dad now, he should support them.

I do my best, i can not physically do anymore, am already bordering on having a break down!

wayne0

his_wife wrote: »

i think the whole system needs a complete rethink, i am not saying neglect the first family to support the first.

neither am i... hell i cant even afford to take my son to mc d's now, despite the fact i only pay 2 quid for a meal... is that fair?

what the point in me seeing my son, if all we ever do it sit around doing nothing...

can anybody tell me what i could do in the winter freezing temps for 8 hours, with a 3 year old, which isnt going to cost money?... because i sure as hell cant think of anything...

in the summer fine, i could go to the park , duck pond etc...

but instead im now having to suffer and cant even "treat" my daughter who lives at home full time, because CTC which my wife recieves is taken into account for calculations, ETC...

his_wife wrote: »

The cb, both parents in household can earn 40000 each and wont loose it, but as soon as one earns over, gone!

i thought it was joint income? not singular?

if this is the case- cant your hubby cut his hours - and therefore his maintenance payments?

his_wife

see thats the catch wayno, to cut his hours, we definitley cant live, and if you reduce your hours like you say, you are spiting previous children with previous partners. No its not joint income, its singular.

My children see sd getting xyand z yet, i can not give them. Yes i am married to her father, but because he pays csa, and she doesnt see it, she still comes round needing this that and the other. My children look helpless, i feel helpless.

I totally agree with what your saying about treating your children etc, but the csa dont take into account fairness and unfairness. Like you say both of your children loose out. The system should make maintenance acountable. As they can still claim maximum benefits no matter how much they get, i know not every pwc will get a lot, but those who do, surely dont need the benefits as well as a vast amount.

The extremely rare occassion my ex wants to play happy families, he asks me for a portion of the 19 a wk i get off him back, as apparently the csa told him that money is for the children, which is true by the way, and not for the pwc.

Which then brings me back to my first point, why should we pay the pwc, when it goes on her mortgage etc and not the child, as once the child leaves home she will still have that mortgage to pay, and out of what??

wayne0

his_wife wrote: »

why should we pay the pwc, when it goes on her mortgage etc and not the child, as once the child leaves home she will still have that mortgage to pay, and out of what??

to be fair, most mortgages can be cheaper than rent... if you can get a mortgage, why pay rent? plus you get to own XXX amount of the property with every payment (its an investment) and as other say, the kid needs a roof over their head (which i dont dispute)...

BUT:

if i am to pay CSA for my son, at 18, i would expect to follow scottish law, and pay it directly to him, not my ex... and then what he sorted with my ex for way of board, would of course be between them, but being a father - i would happily take him in for the cost of absolutely nothing... provided he commited himself to bettering himself (it doesnt cost that much more to put an extra plate of food on the table) - which is essentially the only cost that would be involved...

shegirl

his_wife wrote: »

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.

You can't claim working tax credits earning up to 40k a year.The cut off for working tax credits is 15 or 16k. Child tax credits yes,but it would be around a tenner a week at most

365days

The trouble in this situation is your ex not paying enough maintenance. Also you not being able to support your own children financially (You say you can't get more hours etc etc) This is the real issue as I see it. If you had remained single you would of got benefits to top up your wages HB etc etc.

But you met someone, who earned a good wage, who housed you and your children, paid the bills etc etc. (you say your wages cover food shopping only) In my eyes your new man supports your children hugely (roof over their head, heat. light etc etc) That's great. However in all of this you seem to resent the fact that for two more years he will have to pay his first child's maintenance. Presumably so the PWC can house, heat. light AND feed his child. I can see where you are coming from but I think you should thank your lucky stars you aren't on your own struggling and someone else is paying to look after your children as well as his own. He sounds like a very decent bloke.

his_wife

365 days, yes he is a very decent man, and yes if i was on benefits i would qualify for help etc. I had my house before i met my now hubby, so thankfully i have a titchy mortgage. But, my children get penalised because of what he earns. Now, yes, he should support his own flesh and blood first and foremost, but my initial argument, i will still stand by, the goal posts have changed , via the csa, and i dont agree with it. They should of changed goal posts 2 years ago, and prewarned all the nrp it was happening, rather than getting to the last payment then dropping it in.

I am not saying he would of stopped supporting his daughter completely, he would of given her maybe, a couple of hundred pounds a month to his daughter, to help her with her education.

The course she is doing is 12 hours, spread over 5 days, this is the third year, she has attempted this course, she normally drops out, around about now, then her mum will lie, and tell the sd to lie, so she doesnt loose her benefits, we have been here a few times.

So please appreciate my problem with this! it isnt to better her education, its to simply stop her from having to job hunt.

Marisco

This is where they need to clamp down on what constitutes a "college course"!! 12 hours over 5 days is ridiculous!! My gd leaves the house at 8am and doesn't get home until 4.30pm from college, oh's daughter was the same when she was a college. If CSA is going to be paid, then they need to put in a full shift in, or get a job and contribute themselves to the PWC's household!!

FBaby

wayne0 wrote: »

ok, i realise your a PWC... so i let most of these comments go over my head...

Really, just because I'm a PWC. That's a bit short-sighted. If you read some of my previous post, you will see that I am not always defending pwc's rights. You will also see that I've never gone to the csa to get maintenance from my ex and that despite not getting a penny from him, I still pay £40 a month so that our kids can go and visit him every week, because that's what he wants....so I don't think I can be considered a pwc with a axe to grind....

Child maintenance is regular, reliable financial support that helps towards a child's everyday living costs. The parent without the main day-to-day care of the child pays child maintenance to the other parent.
Child maintenance can make a real difference to children and give them the best start in life as it can help pay for things like clothing, food or other essentials. It could also help keep both parents involved with their children’s lives.
"

now the fact is... child maintenance is one of the reasons im finding it difficault to be part of my sons life...

Why is it maintenance and nothing to do with the fact that your wife doesn't work and so you are having to support both your previous child AND your new household on your own?

not only that,,, should my wife leave me because the the crap she has to put up with over all of this CSA... she would go home to indonesia, and would result in me loosing contact with my other two kids...

If she were to go back home to Indonesia because she resents you supporting your child, depriving you of access to your child, then surely she is the one who would need to readjust her priorities.

so tell me. child maintenance via the CSA works?...

No, I am not a fan of csa, but unfortunately, too many nrps would convince themselves that they should pay only a minimum amount to support their kids who don't live with them, or not at all if it wasn't for the csa.

the CSA is so out of touch (and even most PWC would agree with that) that its possible for most mothers who are vindictive to use it as a weapon...

It is only see as a weapon by nrps who don't want to pay what they have been told to pay. csa is rubbish when it comes to administration, hence my disliking of it, but when it comes to the rule of assessing what a nrp should contribute, as a whole, I think it is pretty fair. PWCs don't control the csa, they can only control that they act on what the rules are.

and it actually encourages women to get pregnant and leave the father knowing they will be left with this huge bill from the csa which they will get to keep 100% of, on top of their benefits..

Of course.... women are so devious that they plan to get pregnant just to be able to use the csa to make the life of their partner miserable because for some reason, they hate them so much, they think that is the best way to get back at them....Come on, you can'tbe thinking that this is normality...

just like any other benefit - CSA should be deductable from benefits - and be taken into account for both the giver and reciever...

CSA is NOT a benefit. However, it is income to the pwc and I wholeheartdly support csa to be taken into account when calculating child tax credits.