csa grrrrrr

his_wife

as long as they are 19 and under on dec 10th they qualify sensemaya, hence my annoyance and frustration

wayne0

Meaning of “child”


For section 55 of the Child Support Act 1991 (c. 48) substitute—

“55Meaning of “child”


(1)In this Act, “child” means (subject to subsection (2)) a person who—

(a)has not attained the age of 16, or

(b)has not attained the age of 20 and satisfies such conditions as may be prescribed.

(2)A person who is or has been party to a marriage or civil partnership is not a child for the purposes of this Act.

(3)For the purposes of subsection (2), “marriage” and “civil partnership” include a void marriage and a void civil partnership respectively



^ at least a wife/husband cant claim as a PWC

Torry_Quine

If the parents were still together then I would hope that they would still be supporting their child who could well still be at home.

his_wife

if my hubby and his ex were still together yes he would be supporting his daughter, but not to the tune of the amount he is paying, he would expect her to get a part time job at least, and try and earn some pocket money. As it is, my hubby pays a fortune, his ex gets a full child and working tax cred, she works 16 hours, and of course csa isnt a declarable income.

We on the other hand, work our fingers to the bone, get no benefits, as they dont take into account we pay csa, so his ex is onto a good thing, we are onto a hiding to nothing.

I have three children at home, and no, as much as they arent my husbands responsibility, as he isnt their father, my childrens father pays minimum, (he cheats the system cash in hand) so my children loose out, no i dont expect my husbands daughter to loose out either, but it seems my children are loosers all round!!

If my sd was on a third year course, or at uni, i would more than willingly support her, but it would be an amount of our choosing.

Would the parent with care do the same, no, as she will loose her benefits one day, so we will have to pay even more to keep sd in life style she is seemingly accustomed too.

Sorry for the rant!!!

Marisco

Torry_Quine wrote: »

If the parents were still together then I would hope that they would still be supporting their child who could well still be at home.

Yes they would, but what people need to realise is, that when a couple split none of them can have the same lifestyle as they had when they were together (unless the NRP earns a lot of money) The money has to support 2 households, when before it supported one. PWC (some of them) really do have to realise that they cannot carry on as they did when they were together, the NRP has to live as well!!

I've no time for the deadbeats, but I feel really sorry for those who are doing their best, and the PWC wants more and more, and now this age rise thing! If the NRP want to support their child through college/uni fair enough, but they shouldn't be forced to as the "child" is more than capable of working part time and contributing to the PWC household.

Apart from the deadbeats, I really cannot see that many NRP would not help their child through education, but it's perfectly understandable that they don't want to "bankroll" the PWC's household for longer than they have to!

clearingout

his_wife wrote: »

if my hubby and his ex were still together yes he would be supporting his daughter, but not to the tune of the amount he is paying, he would expect her to get a part time job at least, and try and earn some pocket money. As it is, my hubby pays a fortune, his ex gets a full child and working tax cred, she works 16 hours, and of course csa isnt a declarable income.

We on the other hand, work our fingers to the bone, get no benefits, as they dont take into account we pay csa, so his ex is onto a good thing, we are onto a hiding to nothing.

I have three children at home, and no, as much as they arent my husbands responsibility, as he isnt their father, my childrens father pays minimum, (he cheats the system cash in hand) so my children loose out, no i dont expect my husbands daughter to loose out either, but it seems my children are loosers all round!!

If my sd was on a third year course, or at uni, i would more than willingly support her, but it would be an amount of our choosing.

Would the parent with care do the same, no, as she will loose her benefits one day, so we will have to pay even more to keep sd in life style she is seemingly accustomed too.

Sorry for the rant!!!

I know how frustrated you are and you obviously have good reason. However, I do think it worth pointing out again here for the benefit of anyone new to this argument that with the crackdown on housing benefit etc., it really is now an expectation that parents support their children into adulthood. I therefore see no reason for NRPs to complain about this - as a general rule (there are always exceptions). Most PWC support their children appropriately above and beyond, as do most NRPs. There are bills to pay on both sides, children should be expected to work part-time to help pay their way (although realistically, this is never going to be anything other than pin money for going out and buying clothes for the majority of young people) and if the child is still living under the roof of one of their parents, the other should be contributing.

Marisco

clearingout wrote: »

I know how frustrated you are and you obviously have good reason. However, I do think it worth pointing out again here for the benefit of anyone new to this argument that with the crackdown on housing benefit etc., it really is now an expectation that parents support their children into adulthood. I therefore see no reason for NRPs to complain about this - as a general rule (there are always exceptions). Most PWC support their children appropriately above and beyond, as do most NRPs. There are bills to pay on both sides, children should be expected to work part-time to help pay their way (although realistically, this is never going to be anything other than pin money for going out and buying clothes for the majority of young people) and if the child is still living under the roof of one of their parents, the other should be contributing.

Then in that case half the "child" related benefits should go to the NRP, or the maintenance be included as income for means tested benefits. The way it is at the min is the PWC gets all the benefits and all the maintenance, but the NRP gets sod all, yet is expected to be the gift that "keeps on giving"!! He might have a family of his own to keep, why should they keep suffering, as they will get all their benefits counted as income for CSA purposes?

If the NRP has to claim low income benefit, which is means tested, then the income is not counted minus the CSA payments, but before CSA is taken into account, making it sound like he has more than he has. What I mean is, say he earns nett £250 pw, and he has to pay £50 to CSA, then for benefit purposes he's counted as having £250, which is clearly not fair, especially as maintenance is not counted for benefit purposes for the PWC. It should either count for both or none!

clearingout

Oh Marisco, I know you feel strongly about these things but you're not thinking straight.

a)I don't get the benefits thing. Nnot every parent - whether NRP or PWC - is entitled, on the basis of their earnings, to receive either child tax credit or working tax credit. Soon, some PWC won't be eligible to receive even Child Benefit.
b) bearing a) in mind, on what basis is it therefore reasonable that any benefits received by the PWC's household should be shared on a 50/50 basis with the NRP, or indeed any basis at all?
c) maintenance payments are reduced for children living in the NRPs household and for the number of overnights a child/young adult spends at their NRPs house. As such, the PWC doesn't receive 'all' the maintenance.
d) the argument about means testing benefits isn't relevant in this context, is it?
e) the Government has decided, given it's recent reforms in both welfare and education, that children remain children well into what we previously considered 'adulthood'. As such, there is an expectation that at least one parent keeps a roof over said child's head. It is therefore not unreasonable that the NRP makes a contribution towards this. There is, of course, reasonable argument that the 'child' should be paid directly once the reach the age of 18 and the the 'child' and PWC come to an arrangement about 'board and lodgings' and is something that you should perhaps be discussing with your MP if any change is to be affected?
f) I find the 'he might have a family of his own to keep' particularly unpalatable in the context of supporting children, whether aged 8, 18 or 48. An NRP's children don't stop being his/her children, and therefore his/her 'family', just because they spend the majority of their time in another household. A child has two parents, both parents need to work together to support their child. Sometimes in the arguments over money, that gets lost entirely.

Would you throw your children out because they had reached the age of 18 if they were still studying to try and develop a future for themselves?

FBaby

Marisco wrote: »

If the NRP has to claim low income benefit, which is means tested, then the income is not counted minus the CSA payments, but before CSA is taken into account, making it sound like he has more than he has. What I mean is, say he earns nett £250 pw, and he has to pay £50 to CSA, then for benefit purposes he's counted as having £250, which is clearly not fair, especially as maintenance is not counted for benefit purposes for the PWC. It should either count for both or none!

In the case of the nrp only contributing £50 a month for the living expenses of an 18 year old, then surely he can see that he isn't even close to contributing half of what the child cost. How can he feel agreeved by it? That nrp has a child who manages to survives and enjoy a certain lifestyle either supported by the pwc alone, or with the help of her partner and/or the help of tax payers.

My view is that that nrp should feel extremely grateful that he is under no pressure to contribute to 50% of the cost of that child's living. What would it do if the system was such that it was what he was expect to contribute regardless of his earnings?

Cally_Smart

I an nrpp It just makes me that angry that the pwc's income from her job(minimum hours to qualify )CTC,WTC,gets CB ,council tax reduction (I think )prescriptions,opticians,dental care, +Child maintenance gives her an income of several hundred pounds MORE than my husbands(who's got a full time job!) BEFORE we have paid her.Oh ,we cant get CTC,WTC because it is assessed on what you earn BEFORE having to pay the CM. We have the usual bills,higher rent (because we cant have a mortgage until he gets share from the home)services,etc Our son is not getting the same consideration from the csa as the pwc's children ! Where is the justice in that ?