csa grrrrrr

PreludeForTimeFeelers

Torry_Quine wrote: »

Personally I think that in many cases (not about anyone in particular on here) a lot more though needs to go into having a second family when there remain obligations to the first.

I agree - no-one is saying they can't have a second family, only that the first family should also be considered. It's like having a mortgage - if you've got a current joint mortgage, then break up you'd not get another one without considering the financial implications.

FBaby

Marisco wrote: »

Ok, so how do you work that out? What if the PWC decides her child/ren "need" horse riding/piano/dance/guitar/whatever lessons, has to go to a private school/expensive school trip, latest iphone, ipad, laptop, "has" to have designer clothes/shoes/bags? What if the PWC can afford and wants that sort of lifestyle on her own, is the NRP supposed to pay half regardless of what he earns?

I was of course referring to a reasonable lifestyle. I think I mentioned 'normal' in my post. 'Normal' would be mix between what the average teenager cost and what both parents aspired for them before they separated, but of course, taking into account that even in non-separated family, things can change. The 50% amount will difer grately depending on the circumstances. My ex used to give me £200 a month for two children. That's when he was working and earning a decent salary. His position was that he couldn't afford more because of having to support his new family. That's £25 a week per child. Considering I was already paying £5 a week for their travel to him, that left £20 a week... Childcare alone cost me £15 a day (and in my case, not entitled to tax credits).

So whereas he considered himself responsible by providing £200 a month because that's all he could afford, from my perspective, it was only a pittance and certainly not covering 50% of even their main needs let alone what we used to aspire for them when we were together (my aspirations have remained, his to to some extent, but not prepared to fund them).

FBaby

his_wife wrote: »

some one mentioned earlier , about supporting child through education , and yes so they should, we do support sd through her education, well, not so much the sd, but her mums household.... However, my daughter had to come out of college as, we couldnt afford to give her the bus fare let alone the dinner money, and money to purchase items for her course. So how is it fair, that sd, HAS to be funded, as she chooses to be further ed, as she refuses to work, working is for loosers she says!!!!
Yet my daughter had to come out of college.

I am all for supporting, and playing by the rules, but it should be fairer rules, as my children loose out every single time!!!

But turn it around. You don't have to pay maintenance any longer, your daughter gets to continue to go to college, your SD can't. How would that be fair? Your husband's priority is his own child, as much as your child should be your and your ex's priority. The fact your ex can't provide more support should be a reason to penalise his own child.

In the end, it all comes down to financial choices and budgetting on BOTH sides. Not one parent should be financing all or almost all the costs of a child, including education.

FBaby

Cally_Smart wrote: »

Fair point ..but it's all connected -it would mean that she had two days every week when she didnt have to feed the children or wash their clothes pay to take them out to go swimming ,picnics,mcdonalds, or entertain them generally like we did.

Besides the fact that this is already being deducted from the SCA amount, I think the issue of being able to afford to move on is not so much about being to go out there and then, but more relating to afford such major costs, the main one usually being to have another child(ren).

It goes without a say that it would be totally wrong for an pwc to expect maintenance to increase to support child 1 because she now has another child and therefore can't provide as much financially for that child now that she has to share with another. Yet, that is exactly the position some nrps/nrpps seem to take when deciding to have another child and expect contribution to child 1 to significantly reduce.

365days

Your daughter is YOUR responsibility along with her father. His child his HIS responsibility along with it's mother.

I'm REALLY struggling to see why his daughter (who presumably came well before you) should be seen to get second or even 3rd dibs after you and your daughter. Is she somehow less important that your daughter?? To you she obviously is.

Cally_Smart

FBaby wrote: »

Besides the fact that this is already being deducted from the SCA amount, I think the issue of being able to afford to move on is not so much about being to go out there and then, but more relating to afford such major costs, the main one usually being to have another child(ren).

It goes without a say that it would be totally wrong for an pwc to expect maintenance to increase to support child 1 because she now has another child and therefore can't provide as much financially for that child now that she has to share with another. Yet, that is exactly the position some nrps/nrpps seem to take when deciding to have another child and expect contribution to child 1 to significantly reduce.

It was n't being deducted ,this is an 'arrears' situation.We had to go to tribunal to get an allowance retrospectively off the 'arrears' to allow for the children who lived with us at the time.We had to fight for it because the CSA said No!But we could prove it because we had CB for the children over the time period that they were assessing so the judge said Yes we could! We didnt rush in to anything without considering ALL the children & CM but we are being asked for it twice, in this case ,which is what we are objecting to !

duchy

Marisco wrote: »

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!

I bet you believe in the tooth fairy too
Plenty of men in well paying middle/upper management jobs refuse to give their kids a penny once the CSA allows they to stop.

I made a verbal agreement with my fully employed higher tax bracket husband that he would contribute in part to our son's education until he finished university-partly because it was the morally right thing to do as had we not split up we would have done so and partly because as he has a disability my earning choices were limited as he needed more support than the average child-so although I've always worked my earning capacity was impacted by needing to work more child friendly hours, not able to travel with work either nationally or internationally and work close to home.

Since April he's cut himself off completely from our son -won't take his calls, ignores his emails .....and all because he was applying to go to university and he didn't have the guts to tell him to his face he wouldn't even give him a few quid a week to help him out (working part-time isn't really an option with a full study load and Aspergers for him). My heart breaks for Josh -he adores his Dad and can't understand why he's done it -but his girlfriend "explained" it to me- I don't have the heart to tell him the whole truth.

He works for a multinational Fortune 500 IT consultancy in Egham and apparently there is quite a culture within the company of their well paid employees doing this.... so it's hardly just the "deadbeats" doing it.

Cally_Smart

365days wrote: »

Your daughter is YOUR responsibility along with her father. His child his HIS responsibility along with it's mother.

I'm REALLY struggling to see why his daughter (who presumably came well before you) should be seen to get second or even 3rd dibs after you and your daughter. Is she somehow less important that your daughter?? To you she obviously is.

That is really rude! Have you not read any of my posts? My husband with my help had his children every weekend & we have a long period of support for the children. PLEASE dont make judgements when not fully aware of the ALL facts!

365days

Cally_Smart wrote: »

That is really rude! Have you not read any of my posts? My husband with my help had his children every weekend & we have a long period of support for the children. PLEASE dont make judgements when not fully aware of the ALL facts!

Sorry if you found it rude. I have read your posts and I am getting the feel that you are frustrated that your daughter 'misses out' because your partner has to pay maintenance for his daughter. Have I got that much right? (edited to add, It's not you is it? It is 'his wife' I was referring to. I don't think I ever referred to you??)

Cally_Smart

Apology accepted ,& I didnt mean to jump down any bodies throat, seems like a crossed wire/post .No I have been a pwc as well & understand & hopefully have empathy on both sides .When I met my husband to be & his 4 children I knew we would all have to work together & give the children the best we could (ALL of them !)
Regards, Cally