Do non biological parents have to pay CSA?

Scudgie

FBaby wrote: »

You don't get it. OP has taken steps to act as a parent towards this child. He says himself that he expected his ex to pay maintenance and hand over CB (rightly so) so why is it when the child goes back to her mum he suddenly isn't enough if a parent to continue supporting get? Totally different scenario to a step parent who moves on after separation and only sees child casually. OP fought in court for access for this child like a father would do.

You seem to have assumed, rather prematurely if you ask me, that now the child has moved back with her mother I want to 'abandon' her and rid myself of any financial issues involving her. You couldn't be more wrong. Please read my post again, at no point have I said that contact has stopped.

I have not, and will never, let the child down and, for the record, I still contribute towards her welfare although I do not need to qualify to you to what extent that involves. With respect, you know absolutely nothing about me, my ex, or what I have had to go through to see the children.

My bone of contention relates to her mother's attempts to bring me into formal arrangement via the CSA - why should that be the case?

I've spoken with them and they're somewhat confused by the information my ex has provided. She hasn't made an application to them and I get the impression that they would not support any application if she did.

I suspect that, as someone has posted, that she'll be making an application to the courts for Child Support - which is fine with me because I've found this process to be the best way to overcome her unreasonableness.

Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to provide advice and opinions.

Bollotom

Well said, Scudgie and well done in all aspects of this rather harrowing situation. Hope it works out okay for you in the end. FBaby (!!!!!! ??) is being quite insensitive IMHO.

FBaby

I am not being incentitive.

OP seems to be choosing when he is a parent to the child and when he isn't. He wasn't an nrp when the mother was the pwc (he wasn't contributing then), yet fought to become a pwc to that child and therefore expected the nrp ( now the mother) to pay maintenance (and rightly so). Now that she is back with the mother (now becoming again the pwc), he again decides that he is not a nrp. That's what I don't understand.

Scudgie

FBaby wrote: »

I am not being incentitive.

OP seems to be choosing when he is a parent to the child and when he isn't. He wasn't an nrp when the mother was the pwc (he wasn't contributing then), yet fought to become a pwc to that child and therefore expected the nrp ( now the mother) to pay maintenance (and rightly so). Now that she is back with the mother (now becoming again the pwc), he again decides that he is not a nrp. That's what I don't understand.

Quite why you feel you know enough about my circumstances to make such moralistic opinion is beyond me.

Let me make things clear to you: -

"he decides that he is not a nrp" - this isn't my decision, never has been. I think you'll find that it's the LAW. Her biological father has always been the nrp.

"yet fought to become the pwc" - the only reason why I became the pwc, albeit for a short period in the daughter's case, was because her mother moved away. This was something I was asked to do and didn't have to 'fight' as you put it,

kevin137

I don't quite understand the attitude to this guy by you FBaby...??? It is most confusing...

HE IS NOT THE FATHER why would you even consider that he should pay...???

I will get slated for this, but i actually think you come across as the type of money grabbing b**ch that most NRP's on here complain about...!

With the attitude you display to this man, it is a little strange that you have not been slated before now...!!!

I am actually gobsmacked that someone could be so insensitive, oh sorry, i am the one being insensitive because i stuck up for someone who didn't want to pay...

Ermmmmm !!!!!!...! Get a life and let this man have a chance at having his back with some sort of dignity...!

clearingout

whoa! Fbaby doesn't receive any maintenance so suggesting she is 'money grabbing' is a bit thick, isn't it?!!!

What we have here is a situation where the OP has clearly stated he 'had' to go to court for a residence order and a parental responsibility order 'primarily due to medical reasons'. What Fbaby is picking up on, not unreasonably, is the fact that if the courts have been involved, the OP has 'taken on' the child and is questioning the morality of not paying maintenance after this.

I personally refrained from asking the same question as I wondered what more there was to the story but it crossed my mind that you can't expect to have your cake and eat it! However, I suspect the issue here is the 'medical reasons' and that the residence order and parental responsibility order are incidentals rather than the result of a hard fought battle.

Calm down!

kevin137

The morality is people who jump on there high horses about wether or not someone who is not the biological father, not an adoptive parent, or legal guardian for that matter should have to pay Child Support...!!!

Lets look at it another way...

Let's say for example, that we got together, (just for the purposes of this example) we live together for 8 years, we have a child together, we split while OUR child is 3 and YOUR child is 9, would it not be in the interest of our child to have a relationship with his half sibling...? And as we are thinking about the children we do this... The children are better off for it for sure... They have a more stable life with a bro or sis. But things go downhill for me, and i have to go into a hospital for whatever reason, only a short period, and well, you are like family... You have cared for both the kids in the past, the children BOTH love you, and it makes sense...

I get better and get out of hospital, but now i want money from you because you did the right thing...! Well you took on the role of guardian. So you are now Morally and Legally responsible...!!!

Sound familiar....??? Is it right or wrong...???

The point being, this could very easily of been the other way round, where he refused to take any interest and got slated even worse...! Why don;t people care, what is wrong with a little support and compassion. You can't have your cake and eat it you know...!

Personally the only thing i think this man did wrong, is he never registered as a foster parent and got paid for it...! Cos that is what he should of done...! Then you could all continue calling him someone who is only interested in money and not the welfare of the child...!!!

Ridiculous...!!!

And when i said she came across as, i meant she came across like that, not that she was...!

FBaby

Thanks Clearingout, you understand my position and sorry Kevin, but your exemple doesn't make sense. If the incentive to fight for contact is for two children to remain in touch, why going to the length of seeking contact through the courts when the contact between the two siblings can be with the mother?

You keep referring to the biological aspect of being a father. Well maybe I reacted the way I did because to me, biological or not is totally irrelevant. It is especially irrelevant to the child in question. If you act and make decisions that only a parent would make towards a child, then you are as much as that parent to that child.

Nobody forced OP to fight for access and then take on the child. I agree with Clearingout that we don't know all the circumstances, and indeed, maybe he did have a reason to do all this without any desire at any time to act as a dad towards the child, but if that is the case, that reason hasn't been stated.

As for your statement about me being a money grabing 'b**', you couldn't be further from the truth. Instead, I am a complete mug. My ex doesn't pay a penny towards our two children and hasn't done so for over a year now. Before that, he contributed £150 a month, for two, with me paying £300 a month just for childcare.... Before that, he paid nothing again... Still I pay for train fares every week for them to see him ( I could have insisted it should change to every other week which would suits me so much better in every way and of course be cheaper, but I haven't) and I also shut my mouth when I got a text just before Christmas asking me for our DD shoe size as he was shopping to buy her some £50 pair of shoes... I also shut my mouth when I ask if he can have the kids one day during the school holidays and he just says that he can't without even an explanation even though he supposedly doesn't work. I also said nothing when out of 6 weeks holiday over the summer, he only had them for 4 days, even though again, he was out of work...

I could go on, but there is no point as you've clearly already made your mind. You got it wrong though. I haven't once say here that I think the pwc was doing the right thing. I think it is pathetic that she left with her new partner and didn't pay a penny towards her two children, but my comment is nothing to do with money, but about fighting to become a pwc but not accepting being a nrp. Two wrongs don't make it right to the child in question.

Scudgie

The reason I asked for advice was purely to identify whether, given the circumstances, there's a legal obligation. Perhaps somewhat naively, I didn't anticipate that this would become some form of moral argument.

With respect, this isn't an episode of a certain popular daytime tv show and I, personally, don't go round making assumptions in order to provide an opinion or justify one.

clearingout

Kevin,
I believe that the courts do make orders for the payment of maintenance when a biological NRP is not to be found and another person has stepped up to the mark to parent that child for a significant period of time, with or without the benefit of legal paperwork. To me, the existence of legal paperwork suggests that the OP has indeed stepped up to the mark, rather than he has lived in a house with the woman he loves and her child and not paid much attention to that child and then later cared for the same child when mum is in hopsital. There is a difference, in my eyes at least.

It is not wrong to ask that both children are treated the same and are seen to be treated the same following the breakdown of the relationship, particularly if the non-biological child has no contact with its father and has only ever know the OP (or whoever else) as 'dad'. Of course how that pans out in practise is complex but fbaby's questioning is not unreasonable in the circumstances, even if it makes some of us uncomfortable.