Child moving away, reduced contact

kevin137

I understand the moving away, but if you have court ordered access and YOU would be financially responsible for all costs due to the move, then would you...???

I don't know many that would on that basis. But if you knew beforehand you would be responsible you would not be as likely to choose this...

And the costs SHOULD include the difference in CS, so if you pay £400 but reduced by half because shared care (a whole other story on CSA1 & 2) and this was added as well, then the cost of travel and the CSA wold be far greater than the benefit to you, so the "family" would not be better off...

That is what i am saying...

And i am not saying you shouldn't be able to do this, you just should not be able to benefit by doing so. If it is your choice then you need to bear the financial implications without ANY intervention by the NRP it needs to be set up so that it starts at shared care on CSA 3 and then worked from there. So you have nothing to start with pay nothing to start with, then it is decided backwards, not that the Mother has 100% and gets 100% then you try to gain access and payments reduce because you have access... Maybe people would think more about choices and talk more...

You find that people are more open when they are fairly treated and help each other out a lot more when in this situation...

Marisco

Not sure I understood what you said Kev I think if a PWC moves away (I'm talking about a considerable distance here, not 20 miles down the road) then the PWC should bear the costs of the NRP seeing the child/ren, and the same in reverse i.e if the NRP moves then he pays. This could either be in the form of the PWC actually paying for the travelling, or the cost of travelling be knocked off the CSA payments. However it has to be realistic!

You could get from up here (Newcastle) to London in 3.5 hours, but a PWC shouldn't be expected to pay for a train ticket 3/4 times a week! A father (I know PWC's can be fathers, but are usually mothers so for the sake of the argument I'll use that) could put in for custody, and they should be treated the same way, what I mean is the mother shouldn't automatically get it, which is what seems to happen now.

I don't know what you mean when you say they shouldn't profit by it though. An NRP certainly shouldn't have to pay CSA and all the travel costs though. Reasonable travelling costs should be allowed under the CSA, and I mean the cost of how much it actually is, so if the CSA award is, say £100 per week, and it costs the NRP £60 for travelling costs to see the kids, then the PWC should only get £40 iyswim. If he then wants more then he has to pay it himself. I think that's quite fair.

kevin137

As an example, the new system will be that shared care equals no payments... Current scheme is reduced by 1/7th for each night, so to go from shared care because of the move, to received full CSA should also be exempt. As this would be a cost associated with the move and outside the control of the NRP...

So why should he have to bear the cost of that as well...

If you choose to move so one parent cannot see the child, it should be the WHOLE cost...

Does that make more sense...?

Marisco

kevin137 wrote: »

As an example, the new system will be that shared care equals no payments... Current scheme is reduced by 1/7th for each night, so to go from shared care because of the move, to received full CSA should also be exempt. As this would be a cost associated with the move and outside the control of the NRP...

So why should he have to bear the cost of that as well...

If you choose to move so one parent cannot see the child, it should be the WHOLE cost...

Does that make more sense...?

Right, I'm with you now Yes, if previously the NRP paid nothing, and the PWC moves then he should still pay nothing, as the choice wasn't his. But if he moves, then he should pay CSA, even if he paid nothing before, as the choice was his. Yes that seems fair, and at least it stops one having a say over the other re moving, that should never happen!

hairbrain05

kevin137 wrote: »

And some absent parents just don't have a choice about being absent...

this is one of the points that's so frustrating! the csa have been on the phone daily with nrp. CSA are calculating the number of days child spent with nrp in 12month period - but apparently it has to be the period April 2012 - April 2013 which coincides with child's move - so therefore the number of nights were reduced - but not at nrp's choice! PWC has controlled the number of holidays child could spend with NRP as well as the financial burden of flights. But they don't care. If they used Jan12-Jan13 it was well over 100 days.. but nope they aren't interested. So the PWC is at liberty to reduce contact thereby influencing the payment calculations... not to mention the impact on relationships. How can that be right?!

FBaby

kevin137 wrote: »

As an example, the new system will be that shared care equals no payments... Current scheme is reduced by 1/7th for each night, so to go from shared care because of the move, to received full CSA should also be exempt. As this would be a cost associated with the move and outside the control of the NRP...

So why should he have to bear the cost of that as well...

If you choose to move so one parent cannot see the child, it should be the WHOLE cost...

Does that make more sense...?

I would agree with this. People have to take responsibility for the choices they make. It they want to move against the other parent's wish, then it is fair they shouldn't be expected the other parent to be financially penalised for a choice they didn't make. Definitely agree with this. The move should factor this extra cost in, so that if you can't do it, it means you can't afford to move, end of.

kevin137

FBaby wrote: »

I would agree with this. People have to take responsibility for the choices they make. It they want to move against the other parent's wish, then it is fair they shouldn't be expected the other parent to be financially penalised for a choice they didn't make. Definitely agree with this. The move should factor this extra cost in, so that if you can't do it, it means you can't afford to move, end of.

At last we agree on something...

It is only going to be a factor when the distance is great, i mean i would travel 50 miles twice in a day no problem... When you get to 100 miles there 100 miles back and you can't get home and then back in the time allocated it becomes harder, but i think the basis is there for a reasonable distance and costs should definitely be a consideration for not punishment but certainly being a factor in the choice...

The only problem with this, is it would never work because the CSA could never implement it, and there would be too many factors, like the person who doesn't have a car and public transport costs more than direct driving etc etc....

But the idea is much better that the current standard i think...!!!

purplepardalis

What's fair and what happens in reality are 2 different things. I'm an NRPP. The PWC moved a considerable distance away in 2007 which resulted in a £300 a month cost in train fares for contact. PWC said she would fund half and bring children once a month. This never happened. So we paid fares and maintenance at CSA recommended amount plus a bit more.

We've now had a son. In order to meet all bills plus the above costs I went back to work as I earn more. So we have one wage and still pay maintenance as previous level and the train fares.

What would happen if we tried to reduce either? Contact would be stopped.

We are at financial breaking point because we have to maintain a house big enough for 5 despite one bedroom only being slept in every other weekend.

Morally I am satisfied but my son goes without so much because of this. And I have missed out on his precious first year.

kevin137

And this is precisely why you need a court ordered access.. Then contact cannot be stopped without consequences...!!!

It may be worth going for anyway to get an order so you can then address the finances, as your payment would reduce if you claimed transport and a new child in your house...

purplepardalis

But the PWC would stop access until the hearing happened. And who would suffer? Us of course but most importantly the children would.