Can you be moved from CSA2 back to CSA1?

Tufty199

My partner is a non resident parent and has always paid the CSA payment in full and on time. The case is under CSA1.

We have a child together and I understand that if we were to separate and I made a claim then both assessments would be considered under CSA2.

If at a later date I went on to cease to make a claim then would his payment for the first child be calcualted once more under CSA1 or remain under CSA2?

PreludeForTimeFeelers

Tufty199 wrote: »

My partner is a non resident parent and has always paid the CSA payment in full and on time. The case is under CSA1.

We have a child together and I understand that if we were to separate and I made a claim then both assessments would be considered under CSA2.

If at a later date I went on to cease to make a claim then would his payment for the first child be calcualted once more under CSA1 or remain under CSA2?

It would stay on CS2.

Tufty199

Thanks for taking the time to reply. Do you have any idea where that is written down?

DUTR

Tufty199 wrote: »

Thanks for taking the time to reply. Do you have any idea where that is written down?

It sort of doesn't have to be written down, CSA1 is not available to new claims.

Tufty199

Thanks. I was thinking the same but my partner is insistent that he has read that someone's claim reverted back to CSA1 - and seeing as the first claim for his son would be ongoing it did seem possible that claim would revert back to CSA1 as now.

mum2one

as the claim would be for a new child then that would be classed as a new claim, the old claim under csa 1 would close and no payments claimed from parent without care, for 12 weeks whilst cs2 claim is being sorted.

HoneyNutLoop

The only time it would revert back to CS1 is if it should never have been moved to CS2. An example would be if it were found the new case was fraudulent, I.e. the new couple never separated but claimed they did to manipulate the child support situation. Should they be caught, the new case would be closed from the date it was opened and the old case would revert back to CS1, restoring it to the position it would have been in if it were not for the fraud.

In any other circumstances as you describe, even if the new case subsequently closed, the old case would remain on CS2. Just don't forget about the old phasing chestnut.

DUTR

HoneyNutLoop wrote: »

The only time it would revert back to CS1 is if it should never have been moved to CS2. An example would be if it were found the new case was fraudulent, I.e. the new couple never separated but claimed they did to manipulate the child support situation. Should they be caught, the new case would be closed from the date it was opened and the old case would revert back to CS1, restoring it to the position it would have been in if it were not for the fraud.

In any other circumstances as you describe, even if the new case subsequently closed, the old case would remain on CS2. Just don't forget about the old phasing chestnut.

CS is not just for seperated couples though, if the PWC qualifies to claim CS contributions then they can :eek:

PreludeForTimeFeelers

mum2one wrote: »

as the claim would be for a new child then that would be classed as a new claim, the old claim under csa 1 would close and no payments claimed from parent without care, for 12 weeks whilst cs2 claim is being sorted.

That's not actually true - the old case would continue but it would migrate from CS1 to CS2, while the new assessment and claim was being worked out. There'd not be a need for a 12-week gap, that only happens when a case on CS1 is closed - in this example that original case isn't being closed.

HoneyNutLoop

DUTR wrote: »

CS is not just for seperated couples though, if the PWC qualifies to claim CS contributions then they can :eek:

I don't fully understand this. Child support is just for separated couples.

In order for there to be a CSA case, a qualifyibg child must have at least one parent that meets the legal definition of a "non-resident" parent, otherwise they are not a child that qualifies for maintenance:
3.—(1) A child is a “qualifying child” if–
(a) one of his parents is, in relation to him, a non-resident parent; or
(b) both of his parents are, in relation to him, non-resident parents.
(2) The parent of any child is a “non-resident parent”, in relation to him, if–
(a) that parent is not living in the same household with the child; and
(b) the child has his home with a person who is, in relation to him, a person with care.

If neither parent meets the definition of a "non-resident" parent then there isn't a qualifying child, so there can be no CSA case for that child.

Obviously household is not the same thing as address - is that what you mean?

DUTR

HoneyNutLoop wrote: »

I don't fully understand this. Child support is just for separated couples.

In order for there to be a CSA case, a qualifyibg child must have at least one parent that meets the legal definition of a "non-resident" parent, otherwise they are not a child that qualifies for maintenance:
3.—(1) A child is a “qualifying child” if–
(a) one of his parents is, in relation to him, a non-resident parent; or
(b) both of his parents are, in relation to him, non-resident parents.
(2) The parent of any child is a “non-resident parent”, in relation to him, if–
(a) that parent is not living in the same household with the child; and
(b) the child has his home with a person who is, in relation to him, a person with care.

If neither parent meets the definition of a "non-resident" parent then there isn't a qualifying child, so there can be no CSA case for that child.

Obviously household is not the same thing as address - is that what you mean?

From what I gather from the original post for example I am a NRP, if I went on to be another NRP to a different Mother then both Mothers can make a claim, I can maintain a non habitual relationship with the 2nd Mother .

I don't see where there is a fraudulant claim, if there is then the last 5 months of my CS contribution is fraudulant by the PWC in my personal circumstance as there has been 'involvment' . Rememeber the law is based around logic not emotion.