Do non biological parents have to pay CSA?

kevin137

The courts maybe could do that, but it cold also be appealed and it could also be applied for at the CSA after a year in which case the legal standing of a court would no longer hold any weight because the LEGAL standing of the government is that there is no liability.

I think you are opening up a whole heap by your way of thinking... This is nothing to do with anything other than MONEY...!!!

There are far too many families out there that have a scenario that could very well leave a man in this situation and this kind of thinking is as i said before just asking for men to say, i am never going to commit to anyone with a child, and god forbid that men just say, i am not having children full stop...

Don't even start me on where that leads...!!!

wayne0

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.

but the mother should be claiming csa off the father... the biological father!

"it takes two to make a child" - the common sentence on this forum...

this guy, despite taking an interest, didnt make the child...

wayne0

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.

PWC=PARENT WITH CARE or PERSON WITH CARE

it does not need to be a parent who puts in a claim to the csa.

the PWC can claim off both the mother and father! - and therefore there be two NRP for a child.

just because you have PR it does not mean you are liable to be considered a NRP...

just because the father isnt paying - like FBaby's nrp etc... does that mean the mother should use a backup plan to fund her child... (which she abandoned also)...

when biological father starts paying, does the non biological father also pay?...

so the cost of child is paid entirely by somebody else... two fathers?...

what a f...ed up system that would be eh... (oh wait, i shouldnt use the term "would be" because it already is... but at least it isnt as bad as some might hope it to be)