Will I get my money?

labyrinth84

shoe*diva79 wrote: »

Im unsure how much children cost. I know its more then rent and council tax though. If you have no children you can rent a smaller property then say having 2 children. So straight away your rental costs have increased. Children cost food, heat, water, clothing, the odd present when attending their school friends birthday party, their own birthday, christmas, after school clubs (brownies, football etc) and the list does go on...

Child Support is supposed to let the child continue living the same standard as they were when the parents were together.

And Im sorry, but why should the NRP new family be more important then the family he had first? All children are important and if the NRP gains step children then I would expect their NRP to be providing, and if the NRP goes on to have more children of their own then they should seriously consider the cost and if they can afford it. New children do not make the older children suddenly cost free and no longer a financial consideration!

At the cost of other children living in poverty! £32 a week comes into my childs household IN TOTAL after compulsory rent/ c.tax/ gas/ electric/ CSA payments. £32 a week for food, if she needs trip money, if she has a birthday, xmas...

And that's with me working 40hours a week. My partner is self employed, has earned approximately £2300 since June. He moved in with us as fuel costs for children/ CSA exceeds what he actually earns so he couldn't live alone.

But yeah! As long as the children in the care of an unemployed parent maintains the lifestyle they had before they split- stuff the other kids...

shoe*diva79

DUTR wrote: »

I feel you are letting emotion get in the way of logic.
What if when parents split, the sate takes control of the children, to stop all this bickering?
You also have the wrong idea about CS contributions , it is to enable at least a basic standard, eg shoes, clothes food etc, heating and bills do not come into it, whether I'm in the house on my own or with company energy and water costs the same.

Im on a water metre so every additional flush of the toilet, shower, bath, additional washing up for two other people cost more. I probably would turn my heating down a little if it was just me here, but having 2 children, I keep it slightly warmer so they don't get cold.

I could rent a 1 bedroom flat or such for just me, butt instead I need 3 bedrooms (12 years between children's ages so not practical to share) costing more. Which in turn costs more to heat due to the larger area!

I don't think emotion comes into it for me. Both parents are financially responsible for their children. Unless the PWC was to write down every single penny, down to the last baked bean, spent on the child then we will never have a true cost.

shoe*diva79

labyrinth84 wrote: »

At the cost of other children living in poverty! £32 a week comes into my childs household IN TOTAL after compulsory rent/ c.tax/ gas/ electric/ CSA payments. £32 a week for food, if she needs trip money, if she has a birthday, xmas...

And that's with me working 40hours a week. My partner is self employed, has earned approximately £2300 since June. He moved in with us as fuel costs for children/ CSA exceeds what he actually earns so he couldn't live alone.

But yeah! As long as the children in the care of an unemployed parent maintains the lifestyle they had before they split- stuff the other kids...

Wth respect, in your case, I would suggest your partner seeks alternative employment where he can can earn a decent wage so he can contribute towards the cost of HIS children.

You dont mention the fatheer of your children? Does he contribute?

DUTR

shoe*diva79 wrote: »

Im on a water metre so every additional flush of the toilet, shower, bath, additional washing up for two other people cost more. I probably would turn my heating down a little if it was just me here, but having 2 children, I keep it slightly warmer so they don't get cold.

I could rent a 1 bedroom flat or such for just me, butt instead I need 3 bedrooms (12 years between children's ages so not practical to share) costing more. Which in turn costs more to heat due to the larger area!

I don't think emotion comes into it for me. Both parents are financially responsible for their children. Unless the PWC was to write down every single penny, down to the last baked bean, spent on the child then we will never have a true cost.

yes it costs more, but with metered water costing £1.52 per 1000 litres, it's a small difference, I run a house too, the temperature is 23c here warm enough for me or any other occupants in the house, I wouldn't be turning it down , I'm in a 3 bed house solo, so I know what it costs to run a house.
I saw my daughters Mum yesterday, well I can tell you the CS money funds the horses, but it's up to her what she spends the money on, as long as I contribute my amount.
But as others have mentioned we know what it costs for children, and house costs.

shoe*diva79

DUTR wrote: »

yes it costs more, but with metered water costing £1.52 per 1000 litres, it's a small difference, I run a house too, the temperature is 23c here warm enough for me or any other occupants in the house, I wouldn't be turning it down , I'm in a 3 bed house solo, so I know what it costs to run a house.
I saw my daughters Mum yesterday, well I can tell you the CS money funds the horses, but it's up to her what she spends the money on, as long as I contribute my amount.
But as others have mentioned we know what it costs for children, and house costs.

So from your angle, is pointless NRPs having a reduction in CM for when the children are on overnight contact as they dont cost more?

shoe*diva79

shoe*diva79 wrote: »

So from your angle, is pointless NRPs having a reduction in CM for when the children are on overnight contact as they dont cost more?

Also, you cant deny its more expensive to run a 3 bed house then it is a 1 bed flat?

DUTR

shoe*diva79 wrote: »

So from your angle, is pointless NRPs having a reduction in CM for when the children are on overnight contact as they dont cost more?

The reduction is not because they cost more, it is because the claim is against overnight stay with the PWC.

shoe*diva79 wrote: »

Also, you cant deny its more expensive to run a 3 bed house then it is a 1 bed flat?

On the energy board, it could be the case, modern houses are energy efficient.
I have never lived in a flat, the house prior to this was a 4 bed energy consumption was little different.

What I contribute and what the mother contributes is above what the child costs, as she has proven.

Perhaps then the PWCs should get foster care rates?

galangm8

Perscat wrote: »

My son's father pays me maintenance for him monthly via the CSA. He pays a higher rate as it took them 10 + years to catch up with him and when they did he was offered the higher rate for the duration of maintenance or account for and pay the arrears from the previous years.(

Please can you explain what this means 'higher rate'. CSA do not give a choice, simply assessment amount then arrears on top of monthly payment.

labyrinth84

shoe*diva79 wrote: »

Wth respect, in your case, I would suggest your partner seeks alternative employment where he can can earn a decent wage so he can contribute towards the cost of HIS children.

You dont mention the fatheer of your children? Does he contribute?

How about the PWC seeking employment to also contribute to the cost of their children?

I find it laughable that people who turn their noses up to earning a living think they have a right to tell others so change jobs/ get more hours etc etc.

And if god forbid the Non Resident parent loses job, or also chooses not to work- UPROAR! ''How dare he not work, and not contribute to his children?!''....I say the same to the PWC that don't work! If you have no intention of earning and paying for your children, do not have them.

We have no issue with providing for my partners children, we do however have an issue that it is not based on my partners earnings alone and leaves my child without. And those who say ''paying £90 just to see them has nothing to do with contributions'' are the ones who believe the money aspect is more important than the relationship between the children and parents, because if we stopped doing that then there would be uproar that he's not seeing his kids.

I have never claimed CSA from my daughters father. I know he struggles to keep a roof over his head, and I want him to be able to provide my daughter with a comfortable, warm roof over her head when she stays with him. My daughter maintaining a relationship with her father is paramount to her development.

I want her to grow up with ambition, to know you have to strive in life and earn your way. I want her to have a stable and loving relationship with her father, quality time with him in a home-away-from-home. My daugher will not be a pawn in a money-war. So I will not start one just because another female chose to.

We will struggle paying money that is given to me for her to pay for other children. But when she looks back in a few years time, she will remember a mother who worked, gave and struggled but who NEVER attempted to jeopadise her relationship with her father. My daughter will be proud, with no emotional scars.

How many PWC can honestly say the same? Judging by alot of these posts- not many, thats for sure!

Won't pay for extra's- you're not seeing your kids!! What fantastic parents some PWC are

shoe*diva79

DUTR wrote: »

The reduction is not because they cost more, it is because the claim is against overnight stay with the PWC.



On the energy board, it could be the case, modern houses are energy efficient.
I have never lived in a flat, the house prior to this was a 4 bed energy consumption was little different.

What I contribute and what the mother contributes is above what the child costs, as she has proven.

Perhaps then the PWCs should get foster care rates?

I remally dont know what the fairest way to do things are. There are so man variables. PWC who dont want to work causing resentment to the NRP (and their new partners!)' PWC lokin for work but having to rely on the state in the meantime, PWC who work full time bu still get slated for one reason or another...

Then you have the NRP variables - want to pay, greedy exes, dont want to pay, go self employed blah blah blah.

The way the current system is set up appears fair for straightforward cases. 15% of someones earnings for 1 child isnt much. NRP and NRPP jus need to stop torturing themselves that the PWC is spending all the money on fags, booze, haircuts, horses, cars etc. as long a the kids have good standard clothing, a nice home, food in their bellies...