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

pinkpig08

It would be difficult to determine half the cost, as the amount spent on a child is related to earnings. Plus the PWC would get child benefit and possibly tax credits to contribute towards their half, whilst the NRP would have to pay it all out of their earnings.

I don't think there will ever be a system which both sides think are fair. I'm just glad we are out of it now!

Gigglepig

pinkpig08 wrote: »

I don't think there will ever be a system which both sides think are fair. I'm just glad we are out of it now!

Totally agree. And it is very hard to design a system that is fair in all sorts of situations. most systems, even if they work adequately in most of the cases, will be unfair in some cases.

Marisco

pinkpig08 wrote: »

It would be difficult to determine half the cost, as the amount spent on a child is related to earnings. Plus the PWC would get child benefit and possibly tax credits to contribute towards their half, whilst the NRP would have to pay it all out of their earnings.

I don't think there will ever be a system which both sides think are fair. I'm just glad we are out of it now!

When oh got the letter to say his case was closed, the sense of relief and happiness was indescribable!!

martinthebandit

I would just like to point out to one or two posters on here that having kids makes you poor, and it really shouldn't make any difference if your an absent parent or not.

Oh, and responsibility for them doesn't stop just because they reach a particular age.

FBaby

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?

Of course it does nrp shouldn't have to (and don't) cough up more. When my ex and I separated, my lifestyle reduce because there was less income coming in, but I didn't resent my kids or gave them less because of it. When I moved with my partner, my lifestyle greatly went up, but that's because he worked full-time and I continued to do so. My ex's lifestyle went down because he got together with a pwc with two children who didn't work and then decided to have another child together . I still contribute about 50% of my salary toward my children, but that's also because my ex contributes 0 and I have to make up for it. I have never resented paying that level towards them, but I do resent their father for considering he doesn't have to contribute because after he has paid for all his bills, he has nothing left (or so he says) to pay towards them.

Marisco

martinthebandit wrote: »

I would just like to point out to one or two posters on here that having kids makes you poor, and it really shouldn't make any difference if your an absent parent or not.

Oh, and responsibility for them doesn't stop just because they reach a particular age.

Who said it did? We have helped oh's kids get flats, bunged them money when they have been short etc, the relief was not having to give the money to the PWC, who was irresponsible with money, got into debt through "retail therapy" and expected oh to bail her out (no way!!) by threats and blackmail.

Oh has a good relationship with his (now adult) kids no thanks to her efforts! And she is still up to her armpits in debt, but that is her husbands' problem, we did try and warn him, bet he wished he'd listened now!

krashovrload

Blackpool_Saver wrote: »

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

++

It's not always as simple as that (but then I'm sure you know that!). So you're implying that the NRP shouldn't have more children but...

What happens if the PWC moves on to a 2nd relationship, expects that this new relationship to last and has more children but then that relation ends (for whatever reason)..?

What if they then move onto another relationship, expect that one to last and have more children.?

You get the idea - what's your assessment of the PWC.? Aren't they being just as financially irresponsible as the NRP.??

++

PreludeForTimeFeelers

Is it not just common sense that people would consider their financial situation and commitments before having children..?

krashovrload

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

Is it not just common sense that people would consider their financial situation and commitments before having children..?

++

You might expect so but...

++

seven-day-weekend

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 what about the father of the other children? Don't they have to pay too? It seems to me that the NRP ends up worse off all the time and she is getting extra money from both fathers.

So...they have to pay 50% of their earnings, she gets this 50% from both of them (equalling £100% of full-time wage), plus child-related Benefits? Is that correct?