Should NRP Outgoings be Taken into Account?

clearingout

13Kent wrote: »

I take your point, Clearing Out, but surely the care of the children is not just about providing financially for them? What about the love and support they are missing out on by not having the NRP in their household or in their lives any more?

The point I was trying to make was not to apportion blame about the break up, but for some financial consideration because in our case the NRP was financially ruined through circumstances beyond his control. It was the PWC that put him in that position, so surely the fact that his financial situation was not his fault and the CSA were adding to it and also the fact that he didn't put himself in that situation should afford him some financial leniency to help him get his life together again. He should be able to set himself up in a home where he can still have contact with his children rather than being further financially disadvantaged by paying CSA payments that are beyond his means, and losing out even more on precious contact with his children as he had no where to take them. Instead of having a weekend with them he just gets a few hours as he has nowhere for them to stay. I think it's sad that the CSA do not consider any extenuating financial circumstances that end up leaving the Nrp with less and less contact with his children as he doesn't have the financial wherewithal to keep in touch with them and he has to go from having full time children to children he hardly sees because of the financial circumstances he finds himself in as a result of the break up.

The PWC who put him in that position still has her children for most of the time, still has a comfortable home, and still has an income from the partner she no longer wanted to have as part of her life.

my children miss out on the love and support of not having their father in their lives everyday: but he made that choice, not me. should he not have to pay 'cos he needs to get himself back on his feet? I was left with debts (I'm still paying off one of these some 5 years later), lost my home etc. etc. etc. My ex still hasn't paid a penny towards the upbringing of our children. Granted, I have had state support in the form of benefits but that's minimal. I have worked hard to get back on my feet - and today I have money in the bank and a full time job and a roof over our heads that I just about maintain. I've had to do that by going from part-time working and pregnant with no money at all in the bank the day he left and build it up slowly. Hopefully in the next couple of years I'll be in a position to start buying back a few years with my pension scheme or I'm going to be in trouble should I make it to 65! For now, I have to pay childcare for three children to enable me to work full time....

there is nothing you can say to convince me that both parents shoudln't have to make a fair financial contribution from day one - even when that financial contribution is in the form of benefits whilst things get sorted. It really is a 'two wrongs don't make a right' scenario.

13Kent

clearingout wrote: »

my children miss out on the love and support of not having their father in their lives everyday: but he made that choice, not me. should he not have to pay 'cos he needs to get himself back on his feet? I was left with debts (I'm still paying off one of these some 5 years later), lost my home etc. etc. etc. My ex still hasn't paid a penny towards the upbringing of our children. Granted, I have had state support in the form of benefits but that's minimal. I have worked hard to get back on my feet - and today I have money in the bank and a full time job and a roof over our heads that I just about maintain. I've had to do that by going from part-time working and pregnant with no money at all in the bank the day he left and build it up slowly. Hopefully in the next couple of years I'll be in a position to start buying back a few years with my pension scheme or I'm going to be in trouble should I make it to 65! For now, I have to pay childcare for three children to enable me to work full time....

there is nothing you can say to convince me that both parents shoudln't have to make a fair financial contribution from day one - even when that financial contribution is in the form of benefits whilst things get sorted. It really is a 'two wrongs don't make a right' scenario.

You say it yourself, he made his choice to leave you and your children. My husband did not make that choice, he would have stayed if it was up to him. Of course your ex should make a fair contribution, why should you be penalised for a decision he made.

By the same token why should my husband be penalised for a decision his ex made? His circumstances were of no fault of his own in the same way as yours were not, which is why I suggested that maybe other circumstances should sometimes. be taken into account when the maintenance is being decided.

clearingout

13Kent wrote: »

You say it yourself, he made his choice to leave you and your children. My husband did not make that choice, he would have stayed if it was up to him. Of course your ex should make a fair contribution, why should you be penalised for a decision he made.

By the same token why should my husband be penalised for a decision his ex made? His circumstances were of no fault of his own in the same way as yours were not, which is why I suggested that maybe other circumstances should sometimes. be taken into account when the maintenance is being decided.

My ex husband left me, not our children. He has, of course, messed about and played silly games and gone through one extended period of not seeing the children at all. But his decision to leave was based on our relationship alone which, for him at least, wasn't working. He shouldn't have had to stay in a relationship which made him unhappy, anymore than I should have had to have him stay with him once I realised he'd been having an affair. The result is the same: we no longer live under the same roof and our children have to bear the consequences of just as much as we do.

I think you are mixing up adults and children. Child maintenance isn't about funding the PWC's life and lifestyle (although I accept there are circumstances where that happens at some level). It is about a contribution towards the upbringing of the children. It has no bearing whatsoever on who left who or why. The children need supporting financially. I don't wish to gloss over the children's need for the love and emotional support of both parents in their lives but much of the research points to poverty being the key to negative life outcomes. Children living in one income households (regardless of what that income is made up of) are far more likely to be living in poverty than children living in two income households. This makes the contribution of the NRP all the more important.

CSAworkerx

After reading through all the recent post's, ive changed my mind. I do not want to have to go through tiny details of break ups and who left who for what reason, Lets stick to the 15%, i dont get paid enough for anything else.

Harsh, but everyone posting here is putting there personal feelings into it, "well in my case" ect, i cannot imagine the time id have to spend working our whos lieing ect.

i therefore retract my statement of taking the pwcs incommings back.

Marisco

CSAworkerx wrote: »

After reading through all the recent post's, ive changed my mind. I do not want to have to go through tiny details of break ups and who left who for what reason, Lets stick to the 15%, i dont get paid enough for anything else.

Harsh, but everyone posting here is putting there personal feelings into it, "well in my case" ect, i cannot imagine the time id have to spend working our whos lieing ect.

i therefore retract my statement of taking the pwcs incommings back.

Which is why IMO, it would be far better off in a court. I would rather tell my "story" to a judge than some faceless person in a call centre (and I've worked in one!) who has to stay on script regardless.

How many times have we seen on here about PWC's still claiming CB for kids who are supposed to be in FE, but left months ago and in some cases don't even live at home anymore? A judge would be able to order that info, that the CSA seem very reluctant to pursue, they take the PWC's word for it instead.

Don't you guys talk to each other at all? If an NRP says a "child" has left college, and the PWC says they haven't, why don't you check it out, instead of assuming the PWC is telling the truth? This could mean months and months of unnecessary CSA payments for the NRP. A judge on the other hand could order that information from the said parties. This is just one example, and there are many others where a court would be far more efficient in collecting information.

Cally_Smart

In these days of technology why, oh, why can the CSA not press a button to check child is in further ed. Instead of believing the pwc. We asked CSA for a Ch of Cir they said there wasn't one as she was claiming ch/ben still .What the ? neither child has been college since 2012! Very wrong to believe the pwc against us with out checking the facts.

lazer

I think the system is basically fine for NRP's who don't have anything to do with their children, its the ones that do that get screwed by it.

What would I do to fix it - simple:

If both parents have the children overnight, then all it needs is a simple calculation:

Step 1 - calculate each parents liabilty:
Calculate a) - NRP's base liabilty: NRP's Income * x% (depending on various factors as it is now - other children etc)
Calculate b) - PWC's base liability: (PWC's Income - protected amount) * x% (again depending on various factors - other children etc)

Income is to include all benefits paid.
The protected amount for the PWC is to cover things like school costs which would then be the PWC's responsibilty.
Childcare costs should also be subtracted from both parents income where applicable.


Step 2:
Calculate liability:
(NRP's base liabilty X (no of days without child/7))-(PWC's base liability X (no of days without child/7).
Travel costs should be shared equally.

The child should have the benefit of their parents joint income no matter who they are staying with.

The above system would protect NRP's who basically cannot afford to see their children, of which there are actually quite a few, although IMO this is down to the benefit system as much as the CSA as they will only give benefits to the "Parent with Care" (although should all parents not have care for their children regardless of who they live with???), if a child stays with both their parents, then both parents have to pay housing costs, utilities etc for that child and yet the government will only give the money to one parent, it should be prorated.
This situation has worsened, with the reduction in housing benefit for unused bedrooms, and bedrooms can be counted as unused even if you have your children staying in them 3 nights a week!!)

The so called bedroom tax should not apply to NRP's who have their children overnight - they are already peanalised enough by the benefit system.

I father I know only earns minimum wage for a 24 hour week(So prob works out at about £120 a week after tax), lives in a 2 bed council flat, has 2 children (with his ex-wife)
Ex - wife left and moved with the children to a rural area about 20 mile away .
The father does not drive and the rural area she moved to is not covered by a bus service.

So out of the £120 he would have to pay
Maintenance £17 (20% for 2 children - less reduction for overnight)
Rent for extra room - £20
Travel costs in taxi's & buses to collect children (£10 a journey min - and 4 journeys a week - £40)

So access and the cost of providing a room is costing him £60 and maintenance of £17, leave him with only about £25 a week to feed himself pay bills and feed and enterain the children while they are with him.
The ex-wife on the other hand is in a very well paid job earning about £50k a year so her house has all the luxuries and modcons you would expect, and this has also resulted to the children not really wanting to leave there xbox etc behind and go stay with dad for the weekend.

The only brightside in this situation is that the ex-wife is not entirely unreasonable and doesn't claim the maintenance, but does expect the father to pay the travel costs

13Kent

We had the same problem Cally, the PWC was fraudulently claiming CB and therefore CSA for a child who had been kicked out of college and who went on to move out of the PWC's house. There was nothing we could do about it.

seven-day-weekend

I think that mothers and fathers of children should support those children, whoever they (the parents) might be living with.

So, a couple get together, each have children from a previous relationship. They should each support their own children with help from the children's other parent. If they have any together, they should support them together, without supporting the other children any less.

I don't see why someone who has no children of their own should have to support someone else's. Of course they might chose to voluntarily, but I don't think they should have to.

Just my two pennorth.

Errata

CSAworkerx wrote: »

After reading through all the recent post's, ive changed my mind. I do not want to have to go through tiny details of break ups and who left who for what reason, Lets stick to the 15%, i dont get paid enough for anything else.

Harsh, but everyone posting here is putting there personal feelings into it, "well in my case" ect, i cannot imagine the time id have to spend working our whos lieing ect.

i therefore retract my statement of taking the pwcs incommings back.

Why not stop posting if you CBA?