A little vent re partners in calculations

justontime

Your partner does not have to pay to support your children. You and the other parent of the children have to support your children. Depending on your income you get child benefit and tax credits as well. Your partner may choose to help you to meet the cost of supporting your children but he is not required to do so because they are not his children. When the children are with their other parent it is likely that his partner contributes in various ways (food, transport costs, providing a home with sufficient room to accommodate the children, family treats and activities etc) but she is not required to contribute because they are not her children.

There is a lot I could say about the unfairness of CSA from a NRPP point of view (we are still on CSA 1) but that's another story. CSA is an imperfect system but moaning will not solve anything. If you have a nice partner who helps you to support the children and if your ex and his partner have a happy and involved relationship with the children, you are all playing your part to put the needs of the children first.

J4mesg

Even if your exes partner was a billionaire why should they give you money?.. Likewise if you won the lottery or your partner did that would have no bearing on how much your ex pays in child support.[/QUOTE]


It's not about giving me money, its about supporting his children. If my partner won the lottery he would spend most of it on the chidlren, even though they are not his. The children would still see their father yet financialy bet better supprted by a man that has no blood connection.[/QUOTE]


he does support his children, you sound just like my ex, wants their cake and eat it. wants it all.

365days

lindsaygalaxy wrote: »

My partner pays for children that are not his. Tax credits etc are based on my partner and my income, not me and my ex. Why should he pay for kids that re not his yet my exs partner does not have to pay for kids that are not hers?

So for example lets say that both households have the same income coming in, for arguements sake £2000 a month, and al rent etc is the same for both houses.

The household the children spends most of their time in has to pay for all school trips, clothes, school dinners, nursery, after school clubs, swimming lessons etc.

The other household where the children spend 30% of their time pays a set amount based on fathers income online say £200 a month.

£200 a month does not come close to covering all the amounts in the first household because it is based on 1 income, so the partnesr income in household 1 has to use his pay to support the family.


I can see why lots of partners of the person that lives in a seperate house and pays maintanance thinks that it is unfair that they should have to have their income included, but is it not also unfair that the partner in the 'main' house has no choice but to pay?

But how did you support your family in the time in between ex and current partner?

If you managed to do it yourself, then what's the problem. Your current partner merely increases the lifestyle you had before.

If however you were being heavily subsidised by benefits, then all your current partner is doing is taking up the slack from the tax payer.

I am PWC. I can support my family on my own. If I were to have a new partner my money would go further (think half of all bills etc, etc) Therefore by having a partner my outgoings become halved and I have more money to spend on my children.
If having a partner meant that I no longer recieved as much benefit then yes, financially I may be worse off. But if you never supported your household independantly one cannot moan imo that your partner is now expected to take up the slack instead of the state.

FBaby

I do understand OP's frustration. Take the situation of couple A and B, they have two children and then separate. The children stay with A, B pays maintenance.. A meets C and they move in together. B meets D and they move in together. B and D have a child together and decide that B will stay home and look after the child whilst D goes back to work part-time. They claim maximum tax credits and B stops his maintenance payment. In the meantime, A is made redundant. She gets JSA for 26 weeks, however after that, she isn't entitled to anything more because C earns too much. He is expected to support the entire family.

I believe this is not right at all. Previously, some have stated that it is fair on the basis that C has most contact with the child. I think this is totally irrelevant, as much as maintenance and contact shouldn't be linked. A shouldn't stop contact with B because he stopped paying maintenance just as much as C shouldn't be expect to support the children solely just because he has more contact with the children than their own father.

It really gets to me that an nrp can decide to stop working and rely on his wife to support the family and has no qualms as stopping paying maintenance as a result. Just like you cannot claim JSA if you give up your job, I think nrps shouldn't be entitled to stop paying maintenance if they do the same.

Saying that, this is only one case scenario. When the pwc stops working in agreement with the pwcp, then it is absolutely right the the pwcp should support the children as it is their decision that the pwc shouldn't work. Similarly, I do think it is right that nrpp income shouldn't be taken into consideration when the nrp is working and already providing maintenance.

sulkisu

FBaby wrote: »

I do understand OP's frustration. I do think it is right that nrpp income shouldn't be taken into consideration when the nrp is working and already providing maintenance.

I didn't quote the whole post, because the rest of it doesn't apply to the original post. OP's frustrations centre on this one (in bold) point - that NRPP's salary (which apparently is similar to her own) is not taken into account when calculating CM. So you appear to disagree with her after all .

FBaby

sulkisu wrote: »

I didn't quote the whole post, because the rest of it doesn't apply to the original post. OP's frustrations centre on this one (in bold) point - that NRPP's salary (which apparently is similar to her own) is not taken into account when calculating CM. So you appear to disagree with her after all .

Absolutely, in her situation, I don't think nrpp income should be taken into account, only in the circumstances I pointed in my post.

Bluemeanie_2

lindsaygalaxy wrote: »

I am on CSA2 and find this totally unfair.

I have a partner. All his income goes to providing for me and the kids. Its an average wage and after bills there is little left at the end of the month.

Ex has a partner. She works full time and earns a descent wage (actually similar job to me). Her income is not included in working out maintanance.

So my partner gives us all and the childrens fathers partner gives nothing, except for buying new cars and holidays abroad. Why is this?

I must disagree with this statement as an NRP's Wife. Although yes, technically my income is not included on the assessment, (and rightly so). I contribute to the household that me and my Husband run, therefore leaving him with more income for other things, such as taking the children on holiday, buying clothes etc. When they stay with us, whichever way you look at it/dress it up, even with the maintenance, my income subsidises it one way or another.

I understand how you it feels like your partner is "expected to give everything". However again, both your bills are reduced by cohabiting, even things as little as cleaning material costs etc. You get CB, any CTC on both your incomes agreed, but then the NRP and his partners children's CTC is used as part of the calculation, and the CM he pays isn't deducted before they work out their income for these benefits.

You just sound like a bitter money-grabbing PWC if I'm honest.

NotSuchASmugMarriedNow

Its not your partners job to pay for your children. Nor is it your ex's partners job to pay for your children.

Its up to you and the childrens father to pay for them.

NotSuchASmugMarriedNow

NotSuchASmugMarriedNow wrote: »

Its not your partners job to pay for your children. Nor is it your ex's partners job to pay for your children.

Its up to you and the childrens father to pay for them.

I mean ex'partners current partner.

Marisco

lindsaygalaxy wrote: »

I am on CSA2 and find this totally unfair.

I have a partner. All his income goes to providing for me and the kids. Its an average wage and after bills there is little left at the end of the month.

Ex has a partner. She works full time and earns a descent wage (actually similar job to me). Her income is not included in working out maintanance.

So my partner gives us all and the childrens fathers partner gives nothing, except for buying new cars and holidays abroad. Why is this?

So if all his income goes to support you and your kids, where does your income go? It sounds like you want your partners' income soley kept in your household, to support you and your children, and nothing paid to support his own kids! Do you really think that's OK?

Where I do disagree with the system is when WTC's and CTC's in the NRP's household are used for CM calculations. And no "money off" CM should be because there are kids in the NRP's household either. Calculations should be based soley on a NRP's income. Not CTC, WTC or if there are kids in the NRP household.

Another anomilie is if a NRP needs to claim means tested benefits, the CM is not taken off before calcs are done. It gives a false impression of how much income an NRP actually has. It could be the difference between granting benefits or not. This is unfair as benefits are not taken into account when deciding how much CM the PWC gets.