Should NRP Outgoings be Taken into Account?

cakeforbrains

Evening all!

Some of you may know that I am having some issues with my NRP, but that is what it is. I'm not asking this question to talk about me, but rather to hear people's opinions and perhaps foster some respectful debate...

Should the NRP's outgoings be taken into account when making a maintenance calculation?

What about if the NRP has extra outgoings like high travel costs to see the children, or to get to work. What about if children in the NRP's household need extra money spending on them, because of an illness or a talent perhaps. Or what if the NRP has a high level of debt that they need to service to keep a roof over their head. Or maybe they live in a part of the country with high housing costs and council tax.

If outgoings shouldn't be calculated for maintenance, what if the NRP has arrears? The CSA can take up to 40% of net income if there are arrears - should they be asking for outgoing details then? Or should the money for the children be the priority outgoing?

Or maybe the whole thing should be turned on its head and there should be a set universal 'cost' per child irrespective of the NRP's income. That way any money he or she earned over that amount could be kept.

Interested to know opinions, that's all. I'm not trying to argue either way.

angelsmomma

In my opinion the NRP's debts are irrelevant. They had a child and need to support it. If they then go on to have further children that is their choice but they should not expect to pay less for the first child/children.

justontime

angelsmomma wrote: »

In my opinion the NRP's debts are irrelevant. They had a child and need to support it. If they then go on to have further children that is their choice but they should not expect to pay less for the first child/children.

The issue of children in the NRP household isn't as simple as that. I absolutely agree that both parents should support their children, but often the children in the NRP household are not a 'second family' of the NRP. They are the children of the NRPP. There are many cases (including my own) where the NRPP is the sole provider for these children, and as any help in terms of tax credits, child benefit etc depends on the household income it seems reasonable for some adjustment to be made to the CSA assessment to take into account the children in the NRP household.

Personally I think the duty of both parents to support their children goes far beyond just the financial responsibility. It is about being there for their children and showing them that they are loved and wanted.

Cally_Smart

It really isn't so simple of course the children need support ...we are in the position of having provided years of CM only to have the pwc deny it ! Its been a year now into try to sort our case out and are finding it very hard to live on what's left The CSA take ages to sort anything out & due to their delay in saying the pwc had approached them (she said nothing to us !)for 14 more months we carried on paying her by dd to her bank (the CSA admitted they had caused a delay(paid us £50 consolatory payment) but wont count any these payments we paid her either!) We aren't being left enough in our home to provide for our son to a decent quality of life.... I'm doing my best but this isn't fair treatment for caring nrp's !

angelsmomma

justontime wrote: »

The issue of children in the NRP household isn't as simple as that. I absolutely agree that both parents should support their children, but often the children in the NRP household are not a 'second family' of the NRP. They are the children of the NRPP. There are many cases (including my own) where the NRPP is the sole provider for these children, and as any help in terms of tax credits, child benefit etc depends on the household income it seems reasonable for some adjustment to be made to the CSA assessment to take into account the children in the NRP household.

Personally I think the duty of both parents to support their children goes far beyond just the financial responsibility. It is about being there for their children and showing them that they are loved and wanted.

I'm sorry but the first child/children should not have financial support based on the choice the NRP made to set up another family.

It is always said on here that "its not just about financial support". Well it is for the parent with care who has to pay the bills and provide for the child/children.

Being there and showing them they are loved is the expected things to do when you have a child, that is a given. It does not however provide a roof over their heads, or food in their tummys.

krashovrload

angelsmomma wrote: »

In my opinion the NRP's debts are irrelevant. They had a child and need to support it.

++

Back in the good old days of CSA1, I remember being asked to pay between 33%-40% (when I had arrears) for a single child. I was also told in no uncertain terms by the CSA that my primary concern should be paying maintenance for my child and the fact that I was working 40 hours for little more than JSA rates was perfectly acceptable..

++

angelsmomma

Cally_Smart wrote: »

It really isn't so simple of course the children need support ...we are in the position of having provided years of CM only to have the pwc deny it ! Its been a year now into try to sort our case out and are finding it very hard to live on what's left The CSA take ages to sort anything out & due to their delay in saying the pwc had approached them (she said nothing to us !)for 14 more months we carried on paying her by dd to her bank (the CSA admitted they had caused a delay(paid us £50 consolatory payment) but wont count any these payments we paid her either!) We aren't being left enough in our home to provide for our son to a decent quality of life.... I'm doing my best but this isn't fair treatment for caring nrp's !

This is not the usual case though. Had csa been used from the beginning the PWC would not have been able to deny the payments.

You are naturally upset but this is not the childs/childrens fault and they still need to be supported by the person who made them.

As I said in my post, the father choose to have another family, this should not affect the first child.

Before anyone gets the impression I am biased as a PWC we are the second family. The fact that I am now a PWC (since he went on to make yet another family) does not change that when we made our family the PWC had his first family to support and we always paid willingly for them. They were after all there before we began.

Cally_Smart

There was a case open 10 years ago but she told us she closed it to have direct payments, we weren't worried to do this we had proof of every payment -little did we know the CSA would ask the pwc if she ACCEPTS it as CM . Dont forget we had the children every weekend ,bought anything she asked for,took them on all our camping holidays while she went on her own adult holidays. Feeling a bit angry that she has alienated all the children over it they are all adults except one now and that the CSA allow her to do this. They can take 40% while there is a dispute going on over arrears !

FBaby

There are many cases (including my own) where the NRPP is the sole provider for these children, and as any help in terms of tax credits, child benefit etc depends on the household income it seems reasonable for some adjustment to be made to the CSA assessment to take into account the children in the NRP household.

I strongly disagree with this. Why should first children be penalised because their step-siblings mum and dad can't support them solely? It is not their fault if their nrp doesn't support them, or if the nrpp isn't working full-time or earning enough to support them, taking into account that many bills will now be split.

I strongly believe that parents should first have a duty towards their own children. Why would it be ok for a nrpp to work part-time say because she can then spend more time with her own children, and as a result, it is ok for the nrp to half his contribution to his own children. This system could be abuse way too easily if allowed. It's bad enough that it allows the nrpp to support the family whilst the nrp stay at home resulting in not having to pay a penny towards the nrp first children.

cakeforbrains

Cally_Smart wrote: »

There was a case open 10 years ago but she told us she closed it to have direct payments, we weren't worried to do this we had proof of every payment -little did we know the CSA would ask the pwc if she ACCEPTS it as CM . Dont forget we had the children every weekend ,bought anything she asked for,took them on all our camping holidays while she went on her own adult holidays. Feeling a bit angry that she has alienated all the children over it they are all adults except one now and that the CSA allow her to do this. They can take 40% while there is a dispute going on over arrears !

I appreciate your frustration, Cally. Are you saying that you think 40% is too much to take, or just too much to take if the arrears are disputed?

sfm82

I don't think they should I mean the RP's outgoings aren't taken into account are they?

It's all about living within your means and adapting to changes in circumstances.

I think the current system rate is fair the only unfair thing about it is how it's run. It is a flawed system and many parents feel hard done by and then take their frustration out on 'the money' as they feel they have no control. It creates a lot of bitterness.