CSA ....an (absent) and bitter Dads point of view

StuC75

Under CSA1 That is not necessarily the case..

Since the mother would then give up work whilst raising the new child - the CSA would class her as having no earnings \ In receipt of benefits which affectively put her earnings as £0 so then the onus falls on the NRP to pay a higher split of the maintenance for There Child (so yes having more kids results in affect on NRP)..

swingaloo wrote: »

But you wont have been paying to support someone elses kids if she got pregnant again. that would be down to the other father.

To be fair you said you were paying 108 by court order till the CSA got involved. Do you seriously think that that keeps a roof over a childs head.

Philtimo

pink_princess wrote: »

How much do you currently pay for a child of what age?

350pm which I have done since she was about 8. (at the time I was paying 250 for my son, also)

She is now 18

supersaver2

Not sure if I'm reading it wrong but why would your monthly payment go up when your ex wife has a baby with another man? I know the CSA has some crazy rules but surely not?

Philtimo

StuC75 wrote: »

Under CSA1 That is not necessarily the case..

Since the mother would then give up work whilst raising the new child - the CSA would class her as having no earnings \ In receipt of benefits which affectively put her earnings as £0 so then the onus falls on the NRP to pay a higher split of the maintenance for There Child (so yes having more kids results in affect on NRP)..

EXACTLY!!!

The more seed she takes, the more money I give!


FAIR? MY !!!!

Gigglepig

OP i understand you find it unfair that you need to pay more towards your child if your ex makes less money (for whatever reason). But isn't this exactly the situation most resident parents have, they get a maintenance contribution based on what the non resident parent earns, not based on 1/2 of the total costs of the child?

Blackpool_Saver

Philtimo wrote: »

I was looking around the web looking at when my CSA payments to my ex will cease, and I found this site.
A quick tertiary glimpse is all that is needed to see that it is mainly Mums that are near panic stricken over their monthly windfall ceasing.
Without looking too deeply, one person was saying that it is LUDICROUS that her beer money stops when her daughter goes to University, and the poor bloke should carry on paying money to HER (not the daughter) because,,,,,,,,, 'she will come home on long breaks'. That just about sums the CSA up.

I have been paying CSA since the CSA started, for two children. Before you rant on that that's not possible..

The first was 3 in 1990, and I was divorced just before the CSA started. As soon as the CSA began, my payments went up from £108pm by court order, to £300 through the CSA. I was now remarried and the strain it put on wife number 2 was unreal, as she was working for not much more than I was dobbig out to the CSA.
Then my wife fell pregnant.
Then my ex wife had another sproglet and my CSA payments went up!
She went onto have three more kids and each time my contributions went up, ending at £400 - 50% of my total wage.
(that's how the CSA used to work, I know its different now)

This broke the back of my 2nd marriage, and we split, leaving me with two parasites fighting for every last bit of my 'disposable income'.

I have been paying Maintenance / CSA for a total of 23 years, and it will cease the day my daughter walks into University.

There will not be one more penny coming from me. I have a fund set up for her 21st, and I will continue to pay that.

To all you mums worrying about how you are going to manage...... You have the same choices I have had...

1. Earn more
2. Spend Less
or
3, Go under.

Welcome to the real world.

Stop moaning and keep it in your trousers, you don't have to have kids you know.

Marisco

Gigglepig wrote: »

OP i understand you find it unfair that you need to pay more towards your child if your ex makes less money (for whatever reason). But isn't this exactly the situation most resident parents have, they get a maintenance contribution based on what the non resident parent earns, not based on 1/2 of the total costs of the child?

But surely to god no one finds it fair that if the PWC has another kid with her new bloke, the NRP has to pay more 'cos she can't/won't work anymore?????

Someone said the NRP shouldn't have another kid if they already have one from a previous relationship, doesn't this hold for the PWC as well, or doesn't it matter as the NRP will just have to cough up more?

Poppie68

Marisco wrote: »

But surely to god no one finds it fair that if the PWC has another kid with her new bloke, the NRP has to pay more 'cos she can't/won't work anymore?????

Someone said the NRP shouldn't have another kid if they already have one from a previous relationship, doesn't this hold for the PWC as well, or doesn't it matter as the NRP will just have to cough up more?

The CSA payments do not increase if the PWC has a child by someone else...god knows where he got that one from.

EDIT:Sorry that will teach me to skim read, did'nt realise he was on about Old Rules...

Blackpool_Saver

I do have sympathy for the second wife, she was fleeced and shortchanged and then called a parasite, I hope she and the first wife are friends now

Gigglepig

Marisco wrote: »

But surely to god no one finds it fair that if the PWC has another kid with her new bloke, the NRP has to pay more 'cos she can't/won't work anymore?????

Who said it was fair? My point was perhaps it is the same degree of fair as when the maintenance payment is affected by other choices? There could be many reasons why people give up work, for example to start a new business (which won't pay out for years), going to university (investing in one's future, but again resulting in very low maintenance payments for a while), go part time, live on benefits....

The csa system seems to be based on earnings, not on paying 1/2 of actual realistic childcare & maintenance costs. Perhaps in some ways it would be more fair if one was simply liable for 1/2 of the average cost of raising a child that age (including childcare), regardless of circumstances... But this sort of system could create hardship too.