Should NRP Outgoings be Taken into Account?

krashovrload

cakeforbrains wrote: »

I don't understand. The NRP partner's income is NOT taken into account when making maintenance calculations (with CSA2). In fact, the NRPP could be a millionaire, send her children to private school, and taken them on four foreign holidays a year but the fact that there are children in the NRP's household will automatically mean a deduction in the maintenance liability (whether the children are blood related to the NRP or not). I'm not saying that this is fair or unfair, but this is how it stands at the moment.

++

Things are never fair!

Under CSA1 the income of the NRPP would be factored into the calculations to see what disposable income the NRP had available to base maintenance assessments on and the income of any PWCP was ignored..

You're never going to get a system that will suit everyone...

++

sfm82

365days wrote: »

So in your scenario, a child that is the result of an affair could feasibly leave the original children worse off?

The fact that the child is a result of an affair makes no difference to the fact that the child exists and is no less of a person or no less entitled to anything the first child is entitled to. It's not their fault that they were created under such circumstances and should not be penalised in whatever way for any bitterness or sense of financial entitlement from either party.

365days wrote: »

And if you don't think NRPP should be made financially responsible for children that are not biologically theirs why should NRP's be.

I am a NRPP so I am slightly biased here. I will not contribute to the maintenance my partner pays to his ex (i am the higher earner) even though his ex has asked. I think this is incredibly cheeky. I will however buy my SD presents, clothes for when she stays at our house, food to fill her belly when she is here and give her pocket money every week.

I'm afraid I don't know enough about CSA to know if the resident children of a NRPP is taken into account when the CM calculation takes place, I assume this is what you are referring to? However, if this is the case then I think a reduction in CM is fair as the NRP now has a financial responsibility to children living in their household and these children are entitled to a fair share of their income for their upbringing. They are not second class children.[/QUOTE]

365days wrote: »

If you don't agree that the 'first born' family should have first dibs do you think that every time a new child is born/taken on CM should be reduced?

Yes.

sfm82

cakeforbrains wrote: »

In an ideal world, yes. But in an ideal world we wouldn't need court cases, employment tribunals, or anything else. Why shouldn't parents and their children benefit from a standardised system, especially when it's likely that there will be power inequalities between the two parents.

I was being slightly facetious when I wrote that paragraph. The point I was trying to make is that arguments about money and the costs of relocation etc have nothing to do with CM they are what divorce lawyers are for.

When a relationship breaks down there are bound to be financial implications related to rental costs and travel costs but these vary so massively case by case that it would be impossible to create a system that catered to every individual circumstance one party is also ALWAYS going to feel hard done by. IMHO one ex partner should not be financially responsible for propping the other up while this is going on. The relationship is over all financial stability goes out the window.

Being amicable and communicating with one another like adults is the only way to make the whole process run smoothly. Although, yes the reality is that this only happens in a small percentage of cases.

cakeforbrains

krashovrload wrote: »

++

Things are never fair!

Under CSA1 the income of the NRPP would be factored into the calculations to see what disposable income the NRP had available to base maintenance assessments on and the income of any PWCP was ignored..

You're never going to get a system that will suit everyone...

++

That's a good point, to be honest. If you're going to take the NRP's outgoings into account, then you can't really do it without looking at the household income as a whole, I guess.

365days

sfm82 wrote: »

I am a NRPP so I am slightly biased here. I will not contribute to the maintenance my partner pays to his ex (i am the higher earner) even though his ex has asked. I think this is incredibly cheeky. I will however buy my SD presents, clothes for when she stays at our house, food to fill her belly when she is here and give her pocket money every week. So you do contribute! Whether it's the money that actually goes to PWC or to the supermarket makes no odds. Therefore I believe your SD in in a better position due to your income.

I'm afraid I don't know enough about CSA to know if the resident children of a NRPP is taken into account when the CM calculation takes place, I assume this is what you are referring to? Yes I am on CSA1. However, if this is the case then I think a reduction in CM is fair as the NRP now has a financial responsibility to children living in their household and these children are entitled to a fair share of their income for their upbringing. They are not second class children.No of course they are not but nor is mine. The children bought into the NRP household by the NRPP should not have a bearing on CM reduction. They are NRPP and her NRP's responsibility. Obviously children born to the NRP and NRPP should be included in the equation

Apologies not that great at quoting skills.

Everyone has their own take depending on their circumstances, but as I've said before I just can't see how a NRP should have money protected for CM to children they have had beofre due to taking on someone elses kids.

I'm sure many NRP would be peed off that their children who they were paying for were letting the PWCP off their own CM liability, while not getting any reduction in their own payment.

All these PWC/NRP get confusing so.

Janet and John have a child.
MIke and Mary have a child.

Janet splits with John and moves in with Mike.

Mike has to pay less CM to Mary due to having Janet's child living with them.

John still has to pay the same.

Mary loses out.



Not fair!

DACC

My tuppence worth.

The CSA have to take things like travel costs into account. If the CSA decides to leave you with £500 a month to live on but £135 of that goes on travel then what are you supposed to do?

There should also be a small provision for debt if the debt was incurred jointly with the mother/father of the child.

Those two things seem fair to me, but we all know the CSA isn't fair.

PreludeForTimeFeelers

Prior debts can be taken into account with a case on cs2, via a variation.

Fclamp1

My partner is a NRP, the break up was not his choice. She moved her new RPP in straight away. He tried to do his best but was criticised every time. He paid every month. However any money received by the RP is not taken into account if she does not declare it - renting rooms, living with partners. We were honest and have got stuffed. I split with my husband and did not do maintenance through the CSA as I already knew it was wrong. I arranged a small settlement but basically had to bring my kids up myself. Now my kids are older, RP is claiming from my wages which I work very hard for in spite of supporting my partners child as well as my own for years. We didn't get Tax Credits because we both honestly worked and declared that we did. Apparently RP still is in receipt of Means Tested Benefits in spite of co-habiting. Any earnings she has is therefore not taken into account. Any outgoings we had, i.e. CSA payments, were never taken into account when we were struggling with my 2 children and so we didn't qualify for any help under Tax Credits,etc. Her CSA are not included in her claim for tax credits. We have calculated that her income is £2k/month - net. We both work hard full time to earn more than that. I think ALL income to a household should be included for CSA purposes. A RP could be getting a £1K month maintenance and still able to claim Child Tax Credit/Working Tax Credit. I know you are going to say the same should apply to a NRP but if he has no other family to support, I agree. Some NRP are in new families - not perhaps through their own choice initialy but now happily - but no account is taken of the outgoings that they now have because of other absent parents. The whole system is screwed and the current refusal to move everyone onto the same system is so wrong!

clearingout

Fclamp1 wrote: »

My partner is a NRP, the break up was not his choice. She moved her new RPP in straight away. He tried to do his best but was criticised every time. He paid every month. However any money received by the RP is not taken into account if she does not declare it - renting rooms, living with partners. We were honest and have got stuffed. I split with my husband and did not do maintenance through the CSA as I already knew it was wrong. I arranged a small settlement but basically had to bring my kids up myself. Now my kids are older, RP is claiming from my wages which I work very hard for in spite of supporting my partners child as well as my own for years. We didn't get Tax Credits because we both honestly worked and declared that we did. Apparently RP still is in receipt of Means Tested Benefits in spite of co-habiting. Any earnings she has is therefore not taken into account. Any outgoings we had, i.e. CSA payments, were never taken into account when we were struggling with my 2 children and so we didn't qualify for any help under Tax Credits,etc. Her CSA are not included in her claim for tax credits. We have calculated that her income is £2k/month - net. We both work hard full time to earn more than that. I think ALL income to a household should be included for CSA purposes. A RP could be getting a £1K month maintenance and still able to claim Child Tax Credit/Working Tax Credit. I know you are going to say the same should apply to a NRP but if he has no other family to support, I agree. Some NRP are in new families - not perhaps through their own choice initialy but now happily - but no account is taken of the outgoings that they now have because of other absent parents. The whole system is screwed and the current refusal to move everyone onto the same system is so wrong!

I think possibly the biggest error anyone involved in these situations can do is start to compare lifestyles and what is/isn't fair. It's a sure road to bitterness and anger and ultimately, it's the children (on all sides) who suffer as a result. It's also particularly pointless, as the above shows, because massive assumptions are made based on hearsay and 'what ifs' rather than facts and a secure understanding of the system.

For example: there is no need to declare child maintenance as it no longer counts as 'income' for means tested benefits purposes. I am pretty sure that you're allowed a lodger on a taxfree basis (up to about £4k a year) as well.

It is not clear why the decision was made to remove maintenance as income for benefit purposes but it is more than likely to do with the fact that constant chopping and changing, updating and updating again meant that PWC were going for weeks at a time without necessary income from benefits. Indeed, my own claim for Income Support a few years ago took over 8 weeks to come through. A NRP who is aware of the havoc it places on claims could certainly cause problems for a likely already struggling PWC - and I suspect did a plenty.

I also believe personally that high levels of maintenance shouldn't reduce entitlement to benefits so that the children concerned have the possibility of genuinely benefitting from their NRP's income - just as they would had the marriage/relationship worked out. It seems crazy to penalise children, particularly where decisions to stay at home are made leaving PWC with no income at the point a relationship breaks down. We all seem to get back on our feet eventually, it can just take some time.

Unfortunately, those of us with NRPs who don't/won't pay maintenance seem to get caught twice with the current system but I'm not sure there's anyway around that. Just our misfortune at having children with idiots!

jjj1980

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

Prior debts can be taken into account with a case on cs2, via a variation.

Sorry take this off topic but if this can be done, could someone please point me in the right direction!!