csa grrrrrr

FBaby

his_wife wrote: »

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.

his wife, this is the part I don't understand. Your husband earns over £50k (over £60k I would guess as you say CB would stop rather than reduce), you work 30 hours, so at least almost another £10K. You say your mortgage is small and your children are over the age of you having to pay high nursery fees. So really, I fail to see how you are struggling so badly financially and how even with the amount your husband pays the ex, who I understand is on a very low salary, your sd is able to get so much more than your children. Unless you have accumulated some serious debts, I struggle to understand why you are in such hardship when as a couple, your income remains much higher than national average.

clearingout

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

So it's tit for tat? You don't get the maintenance you think you deserve so you rant on interent forums about how disgusting it is that your husband supports his child? do you know how insulting you're being to all those PWC who receive nothing at all when you say you only get £19 a week? Or just how insulting it is to tell us you can't work any harder but you do a 30 hour week? I am in work at 8:15am and I rarely come out before 5pm. I work in the evenings as well, when my children are in bed. I don't receive a huge salary as I am a newly qualified teacher and yes, tax credits is a huge help to me but it doesn't cover the cost of childcare, let alone anything else. Who is helping me with my children? My ex certainly isn't!!!

It never ceases to amaze me how ungrateful people are for being in decent relationships with decent men who not only support their own children (these men alone are a dying breed) but who is happy to take on 4 others.

You are basically yet another new partner who can't cope with her partner's past and the responsibilities that goes with that. Sigh.

Marisco

I think a big point is getting missed here. I don't think those who are complaining are complaining because the NRP has to pay for a child, but let's face it, anyone over 18 is not classed as a child! The NRP should be able to give the "child" the money, then the child and PWC can thrash it out between them

Why should the NRP "bankroll" the PWC's household when the child is an adult? Her costs will still be the same whether the child is there or not. But she won't have after school activities, childcare, school trips, uniforms, dinner money and all things kids usually have. To raise the age to 20 is IMO ridiculous, and I can see how the NRP's are knarked when think they might only have weeks/months to go, and then this happens!

Dissillusioned

Marisco wrote: »

Why should the NRP "bankroll" the PWC's household when the child is an adult? Her costs will still be the same whether the child is there or not. But she won't have after school activities, childcare, school trips, uniforms, dinner money and all things kids usually have. To raise the age to 20 is IMO ridiculous, and I can see how the NRP's are knarked when think they might only have weeks/months to go, and then this happens!

Indeed,and how long before the adult is still classed as a "child" at 25! The powers that be just love changing the boundries all the time.
Theres no bl**dy end to the CSA nightmare.You just think your reaching the end of your "term" and they change the goalposts.Grrr.Ok,implement the new rules,but at least make it for new cases,not existing ones,but,that would be fair and reasonable wouldnt it,that would never do!!:mad:

clearingout

Dissillusioned wrote: »

Indeed,and how long before the adult is still classed as a "child" at 25! The powers that be just love changing the boundries all the time.
Theres no bl**dy end to the CSA nightmare.You just think your reaching the end of your "term" and they change the goalposts.Grrr.Ok,implement the new rules,but at least make it for new cases,not existing ones,but,that would be fair and reasonable wouldnt it,that would never do!!:mad:

but it wouldn't be fair for existing cases, would it? I have an existing case....but my children are not yet 10. The Government has said that they are not entitled to benefits in their own right to help house them and there is an intention that they should be in education until at least 18-19.

We are going round in circles...!

FBaby

Not being from this coutry originally, how common is it for high taxes earning families to continue to support their children after the age of 18 one way or the other?

I ask because in my world, it is totally accepted that financially comfortable parents continue to support their children until they can find their own two feet. My father continued to pay my mum until I was 18, then at some stage transferred the money to my account when I had one. The thing is, he continued to transfer the same amount. It's not because it was going to me rather than my mum that I suddenly cost less. When I took on a job, it went down a bit, and stopped when I got a full-time job and was able to afford my rent, a car, and minimum luxuries.

I am raising my children to be independent, which they are already showing all signs that they will become so as adults, but if as is expected they go on to University, I will no doubt continue to support them up to what they require to live an acceptable standard (definitely not luxurious), and that will certainly be more than £200 a month even if they get a part-time job to add to it.

The only reason I would not do it is if my personal circumstances suddenly changed significantly so that I struggle to support myself, or they flunk their studies and didn't show much enthusiasm to look for a job.

clearingout

it's a good question Fbaby and I'm not sure there's a definitive answer. My parents (and now my mum) were/is certainly more than happy to support me whilst in education with an expectation that I worked during holidays although that said, there was never an expectation that I paid anything at all - I think that probably would have been different had I refused to work or study. My parents, however, could afford to help/support me in that way which is obviously not the case for everyone.

As an independent adult, I have always known that I have a home with my parents and my mum has helped me financially during difficult times in as much as she has been able.

Most of my friends I would say have the same experience. It would be interesting to hear other experiences.

365days

his_wife wrote: »

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.

Yes the goalposts have changed and I can understand your frustration at that. BUT you nor your children are losing out by being with this man, whether he pays maintenance to his ex partner or not. What is his view btw?

365days

FBaby wrote: »

Not being from this coutry originally, how common is it for high taxes earning families to continue to support their children after the age of 18 one way or the other?


I am a working single mum with a mortgage aged early 40's with no oney coming in from NRP. I have to admit my parents still help me out from time to time. Thank god, otherwise I don't know where I'd be.

shegirl

Marisco wrote: »

I think a big point is getting missed here. I don't think those who are complaining are complaining because the NRP has to pay for a child, but let's face it, anyone over 18 is not classed as a child! The NRP should be able to give the "child" the money, then the child and PWC can thrash it out between them

Why should the NRP "bankroll" the PWC's household when the child is an adult? Her costs will still be the same whether the child is there or not. But she won't have after school activities, childcare, school trips, uniforms, dinner money and all things kids usually have. To raise the age to 20 is IMO ridiculous, and I can see how the NRP's are knarked when think they might only have weeks/months to go, and then this happens!

I'll have even more costs related to my son when he's left school so I'm over the moon his waste of a space dad will have to pay until he's 20..I think he should pay longer than that but hey ho!

I know it's not the same for everyone so can kinda understand people being annoyed with it (personally,I'd rather see something in place for provision for disabled children that doesn't require us pwcs to have to take the fathers to court for additional money when they have maintenance reduced or just in general) but I also see why it's happening when the age kids have to stay in education is rising,housing benefit gone for those under 25 etc.It's to provide for them so the government don't have to up to a certain age.And I see that as right as they're our kids.