CSA assesments? is this right? or fair?

real1314

Kimitatsu wrote: »

Then most of the NRP's belong there too! I am sorry but your "mate" is right at the beginning of this process and you only have to read these boards to see how many NRP's start out with all the good intentions in the world, to be found 5 years later not feeling they should contribute or have their kids becuase they have a new life and a new family.

Read your own post you have already said how unfair it is that the mother gets more money - why? She is the main carer of these children. You have already said that things are becoming acrimonious and strained. What will happen if his ex says he cant have his children for two days a week? Will he fight it or just move on with his life?

I am sorry to sound harsh but this is the reality for the majority of PWC , and no people do not make the same assumption of women because it is more likely to be the man that will walk out on his family. In the main women are the ones left trying to juggle work, childcare and all of the other myriad of problems that go with raising a family, rather than just having them for a couple of days a week.

1. Where did I say it was unfair that his ex gets more money? I didn't say that at all. You need to re-read the OP. You need to READ it with an OPEN mind.

2. Why do you consider her stopping access only from the perspective that he might stop paying? Doesn't someone using(abusing?) their kids in this way bother you? Or would it only bother you if the maintenance stopped? Or is it ok for PWCs to use their kids as bargaining chips?

3. I said things were getting acrimonious, but that's beacuse she has started to change all the rules. He was happy with 50:50 responsibility, even with her getting CHB and CTC/WTC, the kids found it hard, so he agreed that things should change from that perspective. Hardly the actions of a bitter man? She's got the family home - a nice 3/4 bed house with a conservatory all for a £75 a week mortgage. He's in a 2 bed terraced paying £100 a week.

So, you read it again, stop deciding that al men are guilty from the start. We treat criminals as innocent until proven guilty, but CSA treat NRPs as guilty if the PWC just says so, without evidence, cause or valid reason.

aussiesbird

Kimitatsu wrote: »

I am sorry to sound harsh but this is the reality for the majority of PWC , and no people do not make the same assumption of women because it is more likely to be the man that will walk out on his family. In the main women are the ones left trying to juggle work, childcare and all of the other myriad of problems that go with raising a family, rather than just having them for a couple of days a week.

Where do you get the idea that its always the men walking out on the women? The men normally leave the matrimonial house with all the comforts to their ex's so that there is as little disruption to their children as possible. It does not necessarily mean they are the ones who have done wrong in the relationship. They have to go and have the stress and expense of setting up a new home. Do they ask for help from their ex partners for that? NO! Do they have to pay a lump sum to their ex's when they go through divorce i.e pension - YES! This money is given because the so called woman in the relationship should be entitled to something out of "x" amount of years married (that was what my lawyer told me!!)
So don't try to blame everything on the men they are not the "golddiggas" who will go to whatever lengths, including using their children, to make their ex's life hell.

kelloggs36

This applies most of the time but it didn't apply to me unfortunately!! Whilst we split up, my ex left and yes, he had to start again. However, it was his choice to abandon his child from whom he was given whatever access he wanted, but he didn't want it. I got the house, yes, but it had negative equity on it and it was in arrears, and we also had a joint loan which he paid zilch towards, so he left me with a child, with £7,500 per annum income (back in 1991) and a £46,500 mortgage to pay with a £2,500 loan to pay. There were no tax credits then, and Family Credits was worth the grand total of £1 per week to me so I didn't bother claiming it. I did it though. I paid everything up, arrears, kept the mortgage over our heads (me and DD). How? I had support from my parents who looked after DD whilst I worked during the week and I had her at weekends. They had the Child Benefit and I paid them every month for her upkeep. I got a better job and met a lovely man (my husband) and he bought a house and we were able to have my DD live with us full-time again. In 2000 when my ex reared his ugly head again due to the house we had previously owned being repossessed (we had rented it out with the hope that it would regain its value as we couldn't sell it at a loss but it got trashed and in fact my ex was cashing the housing benefit from the tenant and keeping it and so the mortgage wasn't being paid), I dared make a claim for maintenance for my DD and he currently owes over 26k. He was only around when he could make money from us and our situation, but when it came to responsibilities he made himself scarce!!!!! So, I wish I had been stronger and got something from our marriage except debt whilst he walked away and could start again from scratch whilst I was stuck where I was with little chance to make things better ( or so he thought) and only through determination and help from my family was I able to avoid the benefit trap and got myself where I am today. So whilst the majority of men lose out from broken marriages, there are some who can wipe the slate clean and forget about their pasts and all the responsibilities that go with it.

Kimitatsu

real1314 wrote: »

1. Where did I say it was unfair that his ex gets more money? I didn't say that at all. You need to re-read the OP. You need to READ it with an OPEN mind.

Read your original post - this comes to mind

Effectively for the 2 extra days she gets an extra £214 a week.

Strikes me as you felt that was unfair. I did read this with an open mind and I am looking at it from both sides.

2

. Why do you consider her stopping access only from the perspective that he might stop paying? Doesn't someone using(abusing?) their kids in this way bother you? Or would it only bother you if the maintenance stopped? Or is it ok for PWCs to use their kids as bargaining chips?

Nope not at all and if you bothered to do a quick search you would see that I am indeed one of those PWC's who does not get paid and does not use her kids as pawns. It is not their fault and I wholehartedly agree that they have the right to see both parents. It is however a sad fact of life that many NRP stop paying and walk away from their kids when access is refused.

. I said things were getting acrimonious, but that's beacuse she has started to change all the rules. He was happy with 50:50 responsibility, even with her getting CHB and CTC/WTC, the kids found it hard, so he agreed that things should change from that perspective. Hardly the actions of a bitter man? She's got the family home - a nice 3/4 bed house with a conservatory all for a £75 a week mortgage. He's in a 2 bed terraced paying £100 a week.

Like I said read your original post. You came on this forum asking if it was right or fair, pointing out that she got more money than him for 2 extra days. And from your post if things are turning acrimonious then it may well turn bitter - after all what difference is it as to the house he lives in? If he is happy and the kids are happy then he should be proud he has provided them with a nice home and that he gets to see them and be a part of their lives.

So, you read it again, stop deciding that al men are guilty from the start. We treat criminals as innocent until proven guilty, but CSA treat NRPs as guilty if the PWC just says so, without evidence, cause or valid reason.

I did read it with an open mind, women are just as guilty as men (read my posts with an open mind!!!) and the CSA does not treat all NRP's as guilty without just cause but there is a standard formula to be followed as it is the easiest way to get SOME money to the NRP! That was the question of your OP and now youappear to be changing the goalposts. The majority of NRP's quibble over the amount they have to pay at some point, and that was the point.

stressed_eric_4

Hi kellogs, eric from p/cent here, i feel for you to have an ex like yours, believe me we're not all the same, i hope in your case you can get every penny you're owed. i am a firm believer that being a good dad is not all about the money aspect its also about being there for emotional support and even though i do not get on at all with my ex, my daughter comes first so i will have her extra whenever i can or i'm asked, (if i ask to have her extra the answers always no) whether it's so she can go out, do extra hours, whatever she's my daughter so if my ex cant have her then its only right that i should. although i know some nrps feel like they are being used as "unpaid babysitters" but to be there emotionally costs nothing and its something that your child will remember.

Kimitatsu

aussiesbird wrote: »

Where do you get the idea that its always the men walking out on the women? The men normally leave the matrimonial house with all the comforts to their ex's so that there is as little disruption to their children as possible. It does not necessarily mean they are the ones who have done wrong in the relationship. They have to go and have the stress and expense of setting up a new home. Do they ask for help from their ex partners for that? NO! Do they have to pay a lump sum to their ex's when they go through divorce i.e pension - YES! This money is given because the so called woman in the relationship should be entitled to something out of "x" amount of years married (that was what my lawyer told me!!)
So don't try to blame everything on the men they are not the "golddiggas" who will go to whatever lengths, including using their children, to make their ex's life hell.

I think that you will find that only some of the women on this forum will agree with you Aussie! You and I have had our differences before and as I have said before not everyone is the same BUT the majority WILL argue over the amount they have to pay at some point (and you have queries the amount yourself)

I didnt say that all men are goldiggas, nor did I say that they will do anything to make their ex's life hell, but it is a fact that many NRP's choose to move on once they get a new family and new kids.

And to be honest why should his ex not get part of his pension? She has raised his kids whilst he has been out working, not saving up for her own pension. The courts rule on the pension if the PWC has not has the opportunity to contribute to a pension because of marital responsibilities and that IMO is as it should be. Also the ex only has the right to reside in the matrimonial home until the youngest is 17 to ensure that the children are not disrupted, I see nothing wrong in that. It is also a fact that not every family has that option, many have to sell their home whatever.

Kimitatsu

stressed_eric wrote: »

i am a firm believer that being a good dad is not all about the money aspect its also about being there for emotional support and even though i do not get on at all with my ex, my daughter comes first so i will have her extra whenever i can or i'm asked, (if i ask to have her extra the answers always no) whether it's so she can go out, do extra hours, whatever she's my daughter so if my ex cant have her then its only right that i should. although i know some nrps feel like they are being used as "unpaid babysitters" but to be there emotionally costs nothing and its something that your child will remember.

Good for you! You sound like a great Dad and your daughter is a lucky young lady. Whatever happens she will always have you in her life and as you said it is not about the money

Gorgeous_George

The system is appalling and encourages women to use their kids as hostages.

I have been 'fortunate' in that I have agreed maintenance with my ex adulterous wife. It exceeded CSA guidelines. My ex adulterous wife has spent the money on horses and the kids got very little. It hurt but I'm not bitter - much. Only a few years left to pay and then the horses will probably be dog meat.

Tell your friend to be successful and happy - it's the best form of revenge.



GG

real1314

Kimitatsu

You said that I said it was unfair that she gets more money than him. You still cling to this as it "comes to mind". That's your mind. It's called prejudice. Nothing to be ashamed of, if you acknowledge it you can overcome it.

I think it's unfair that she gets a lot more money as he wants to take equal responsibility for his kids, as he has always done. He will be left with an income that's hardly better than benefit rates but he supports 2 kids for 2/3 days and works full time, with the attendant necessary expenses. Like I say, it's there in the OP if you read the words, not "what comes to mind".

I referred to your point about stopping access in that way as you suggested it as a possibility. You didn't express any moral judgement of such a move, just that he should not stop paying. Hmm, what "comes to mind" from that?

He might be happy about giving his kids a good home if she wasn;t now using the pressure of CSA and reducing him to near benefit levels to get his home off him whilst still being able to go back to the CSA when she wants.

Anyway, this has digressed far from the point, others have given me the answers I needed, thanks to them.

daisy_doughnut_2

real1314
can i ask you does your friend pay half of all below
all clothes including underwear
shoes
trainers
new hairbrush bobbles if needed
new tooth brush's
soap shampoo conditioner
any other bath products
bedroom furniture as its needed
pack lunch boxes
school trips
school uniform
new coats
pencil cases and anythin else to do with school
the car tax
insurance
mot
petrol
breakfast
dinner
tea
supper
gas
electric
water
tv licence
any sky tv or telephone
rent/mortgage
childminder
friends bthdays
xmas
their bthdays
i could go on an on but there the basics that his children will need to live comfortably an they do all matter because if the children didnt live with the mother but the father everythin i have listed an more are either needed or will be needed the mother pays a proportion of all bills for the children

if he does pay half to all stated then i will agree with you