Lottery & CSA - The Truth?

Tonester1985

Hi All.

Ok this may take some sorting out. If anyone can offer solid legitimate advice I am all ears.

Parent 1 (father of biological Child X) is the non resident parent.

Parent 2 (mother of biological Child) is the resident parent.
Spouse (partner of Parent 2) lives with Parent 2

Parent 2 and Spouse bring up Child X.

Child X visits Parent 1 on weekends.

Right. Here we go. If Parent 1 is working and say earning 45k per annum and paying a private agreed maintenance amount for Child X then wins multiple millions on lottery, quits said job and therefore has no annual income (other than suspected interest or capital gains on investments) – is it correct that he not only doesn’t need to pay any extra maintenance, but no maintenance at all?

Parent 1 has not made any increase offer to support Child X – so this option is not off the table but may be unlikely.

This is a situation that someone I know is actually in so any feedback would be great.

Thanks

Crellow4

Parent 1 would be assessed on his capital. The resident parent could also close case with CSA and go through the Courts system which may take a different approach.

Tonester1985

thanks for that.


As I understand it - the CSA have had no involvement thus far.


I would imagine this type of thing happens now and then but would have thought it is probably a case by case basis due to the sums involved.

Lovetoread

As far as I understand it, parent 2 would be entitled to a chunk of any capital, which is not earned from working, over £65,000, ie lottery winnings. Something tells me 8% over £65k but don't quote me on that one, I'm in no way an expert.

Tonester1985

Okay, this is the same as I have read elsewhere. Do you know if there's a president for this?


I understand it's an 8% lump sum award too but not certain of this. This would also have to argued in court I assume?


Solicitor has also been on about the 8% thing too she said but also said he's under no obligation to up the maintenance for Child X.

DUTR

Tonester1985 wrote: »

Hi All.

Ok this may take some sorting out. If anyone can offer solid legitimate advice I am all ears.

Parent 1 (father of biological Child X) is the non resident parent.

Parent 2 (mother of biological Child) is the resident parent.
Spouse (partner of Parent 2) lives with Parent 2

Parent 2 and Spouse bring up Child X.

Child X visits Parent 1 on weekends.

Right. Here we go. If Parent 1 is working and say earning 45k per annum and paying a private agreed maintenance amount for Child X then wins multiple millions on lottery, quits said job and therefore has no annual income (other than suspected interest or capital gains on investments) – is it correct that he not only doesn’t need to pay any extra maintenance, but no maintenance at all?

Parent 1 has not made any increase offer to support Child X – so this option is not off the table but may be unlikely.

This is a situation that someone I know is actually in so any feedback would be great.

Thanks

I never see why anybody would want to tell all and sundry of a large windfall (it causes problems in itself)

Anyways the NRP would be assesed on assets over £65k at 8% up to £3k a week, over that amount the csa do not handle the case.
So on a quick maths calculation if he has over £1.95M in assets 8% of that £156K/year or £3K/week or £450 per week asessed contribution.

Csa_Survivor

Tonester1985 wrote: »

Solicitor has also been on about the 8% thing too she said but also said he's under no obligation to up the maintenance for Child X.

God almighty is 8% of a fortune not enough, the man is already paying child support for goodness sake and no doubt the child will benefit from his good luck seeing as he has contact with his kid, is that not enough. Child support is supposed to be just that, support, not a meal ticket for the ex, and please don't insult my intelligence by saying that your friend does not intend to benefit from it! Sorry to be blunt but have you any idea how this sounds? I see it like this, if the bloke is a good guy and is already contributing then his child is bound to benefit financially from his good fortune, it stands to reason does it not?

medsec_222

I agree with you CSA survivor. Most decent dads if they were lucky enough to benefit from a lottery win, would be more than happy to ensure their children benefit from it. It should be of no consequence to his ex, especially if he is already paying child support.

Lovetoread

Got to agree with Csa Survivor and medsec 222, too (too many 2/too's there!).
I think it is no business of the ex what the other parent has won as long as child support is still being paid. I'm sure the children will still benefit from the winnings without the ex getting a chunk. However facts are facts and law is law.

bll78

To be clear it's not 8% of the lump sum. Its the amount lets say a million at an interest rate of 8% (which is totally unrealistic but another matter), and then the percentage of CSA due lets say 15%.
So on £100,000 - 8% interest would be £8000 so the 15% would be £1,200. However CSA for people with lots of money does not go through CSA you'll need to go to court. Also if NRP spends say a million pounds on a house, there's no interest, so therefore the above calculation doesn't apply.

HoneyNutLoop

bll78 wrote: »

To be clear it's not 8% of the lump sum. Its the amount lets say a million at an interest rate of 8% (which is totally unrealistic but another matter), and then the percentage of CSA due lets say 15%.
So on £100,000 - 8% interest would be £8000 so the 15% would be £1,200. However CSA for people with lots of money does not go through CSA you'll need to go to court. Also if NRP spends say a million pounds on a house, there's no interest, so therefore the above calculation doesn't apply.

+1 for CS2, although the last bit only applies if the NRP or one of their children lives in the house.

With 2012 scheme, via CMS, they would take account of any unearned income as declared to HMRC, also under the variation scheme. So it would be based on the actual interest earned or return on investment.