CSA assesments? is this right? or fair?

kelloggs36

Some fathers would claim that they do indeed pay half, but I would wager that most do not. Many seem to claim that none of their maintenance goes anywhere near the children and all goes on the mother on nights out, booze, fags, clothes, etc. Well, I have some of those things and pay for them myself - that wouldn't change even if I DID get maintenence from my ex, but his reason for not paying is exactly that. It matters not that I can do these things for myself and if he sees it then that to him is evidence that I neglect my children and so therefore do not need any money from him. If I did get it, the argument would be exactly the same except that I would be spending all the maintenance on myself rather than the children. Whatever us PWCs do we can't win against NRPs who just want to find any excuse not to pay towards their own children. It doesn't matter a jot what the PWC earns and whether they can afford to maintain the children all by themselves - the NRPs do indeed have a moral responsibility to pay for their children.

real1314

daisy

for the first 2 years he went halves with everything. As i stated, he took 50:50 responsibility. He didn;t pay for half of the house his ex lives in, even though the kids were there half the time, but she didn;t pay for half the cost of his house even though the kids were there half the time.
She did keep the CHB, CTC and WTC though, so she had an extra £60-70 a week. She didn;t give him half of that. That was all in the postings, but you don;t seem concerned about it.

He now has them 2/3 days. He doesn;t pay for half her housing costs, but then he tried to get a house that was 1 bed for 3/4 days and grew an extra roomfor 2/3 days but he couldn;t find one, so he's paying more in housing costs than she is. Truth is, he needs a home and so does she. They'd both ahve to pay for a home, heating, water, etc etc whne the kids are not there.

Do I need to go on? Rather a silly facile and, like a few others, biased question.

I could list all the things he does pay for (quite a lot of stuff actually) but YOU seem to be assuming that he doesn;t contribute, even though I've stated this many times. Ah well, another one for the prejudice routine.

Repeat 10 times

All men are guilty. They must be beacuse the CSA say they are. They don;t care about their kids, they didn't cry when they agreed to see them less times a week because it was hard for the kids.

Some people on here need to get a OPEN mind.

daisy_doughnut_2

if you read some of my threads which im sure you have then you would know im neither biased or have a closed mind

she gets 104 pounds a week exra for the children he gets nothing
so lets split the monies in to fair amounts based on how often he has the children you say 2 or 3 days so lets call it 2.5 and the money is split 35 for him and 65 for her

so now lets take absolutely everything in to account

would he be happy to go halfs on the things they can not share but are benneficial to the children such as a car?
that alone would eat up most of the 35 pounds

an also which 2.5 days does the nrp have the children?

he is paying toward his childrens well being an future
its also not the pwc fault that he cant find cheaper accomodation or a better paid job
and also as ive said before he pays csa so the mother can buy all the children need its his choice to contribute exra

aussiesbird

Kimitatsu wrote: »

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 don't think many women will agree with me at all Kimitatsu, but I am a woman seeing what my partner is having to go through and how it is affecting us as a family and his children who live with their mother. It is not a pretty sight and not something I believe the children should have to go through. They are used as weapons and after reading through many posts on this forum alot of men are in the same position. My relationship with my ex husband is very amicable, there is no CSA involved and we help eachother out where we can. He owns his own house and has a new partner but I am not bitter towards him, far from it. I am happy that he has rebuilt his life and has someone else to share it with. Which is probably why I feel so strongly over my partners situation. I find it sad that people can't move on without being malicious.
As for you and I having our differences this is a discussion, people disagree with eachother I have no malice to you personally and have never shown any. I am just airing my views like everybody else.

RichEd

http://groups.msn.com/CSAUnfairandUnjust/_whatsnew.msnw

Kimitatsu

aussiesbird wrote: »

I don't think many women will agree with me at all Kimitatsu, but I am a woman seeing what my partner is having to go through and how it is affecting us as a family and his children who live with their mother. It is not a pretty sight and not something I believe the children should have to go through. They are used as weapons and after reading through many posts on this forum alot of men are in the same position. My relationship with my ex husband is very amicable, there is no CSA involved and we help eachother out where we can. He owns his own house and has a new partner but I am not bitter towards him, far from it. I am happy that he has rebuilt his life and has someone else to share it with. Which is probably why I feel so strongly over my partners situation. I find it sad that people can't move on without being malicious.
As for you and I having our differences this is a discussion, people disagree with eachother I have no malice to you personally and have never shown any. I am just airing my views like everybody else.

Aussie I dont disagree with you at all. My partner pays maintenance that would make you weep, we have been to and from court like a yo yo getting access orders, visitation rights etc, and he still does not see his kids because they were and still are used as weapons. I dont agree with it at all, and although my ex and I dont get on (you know why!!) he still sees his kids because it is THEIR right not mine. I have seen it from both sides of the fence (with my closed mind that I share with Daisy :rotfl: ) and agree that there is no easy solution.

C-Mecc is suposed to make all of this easier that if you can agree then you dont need to go through any govt agency, but as I said in my first posts, divorce is rarely amicable and one side or the other usually feels slighted. NRP's do not pay half, and you know from having a family how expensive kids are. With the best will in the world a NRP who does not have their kids 24/7 has no perception of the true costs of the child.

Like you I have no malice against anyone on here and everyones views are welcome, open minded or not! Just a shame the OP doesnt like to hear the other side of the fence.........

Hugs

Kimi

xx

Mr_Green_Genes

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.

That really sticks in my throat. You have, in one paragraph, totally negated all emotional ties a father needs with his children. You have reduced the contact to something akin to 'ships that pass in the night' and are effectively giving the green light to all those PWCs (who are according to your own posts, mainly women) who do everything they can to cut those ties, because you are, by use of the word 'just', saying that the 2 days are just a purely prosaic lodging arrangement.

Speaking as someone who was denied contact with his children for 6 months because the PWC decided to behave like a BFH, I find your attitude disgusting. Not that it means a thing to you, but I lost 6 months of my children's lives because of someone with your sort of attitude. At least I got 'my revenge' when they opted to come home sometime after that. THe difference between me and people with your views is that I accepted that their mother had a right to see her children so I never looked upon their visits as "just having them for a couple of days".

kelloggs36

I spoke to a woman the other day in my capacity at work who was concerned that if her ex paid maintenance she would have to let him have access to the children. I asked her whether or not she felt that her child had the right to have a relationship with the father who was equally a parent as she. She said 'I hadn't thought of that - maybe'. She went on though to point out that she wanted to have the control and ensure that it was all on her terms. I advised that the father could apply to the Courts for parental responsibility if he didn't have it already and could ask for contact to be defined under which she would have to comply. I didn't tell her that many parents don't stick to them! She mmmd and aahhed about it and had to concede that her child was not just hers, but was a product (for want of a better word) of both her and her ex who were equal in terms of parents and that she may want to consider her child's rights a bit more.

Kimitatsu

Mr_Green_Genes wrote: »

That really sticks in my throat. You have, in one paragraph, totally negated all emotional ties a father needs with his children. You have reduced the contact to something akin to 'ships that pass in the night' and are effectively giving the green light to all those PWCs (who are according to your own posts, mainly women) who do everything they can to cut those ties, because you are, by use of the word 'just', saying that the 2 days are just a purely prosaic lodging arrangement.

Speaking as someone who was denied contact with his children for 6 months because the PWC decided to behave like a BFH, I find your attitude disgusting. Not that it means a thing to you, but I lost 6 months of my children's lives because of someone with your sort of attitude. At least I got 'my revenge' when they opted to come home sometime after that. THe difference between me and people with your views is that I accepted that their mother had a right to see her children so I never looked upon their visits as "just having them for a couple of days".

Not at all - but read my post above! This is not "just" my attitude in our experioence it is the view of the courts. IMO a child should have two parents because thats what they are made of and it is their right to see both sides of their family. If there are more than that because the PWC meets someone new than that is brilliant because the CHILD has more support.

There are many NRP's out there who do just see it as "having them for the day" and do the MacD and pictures rather than spending quality time with their kids, its a shame that they dont reply to this thread as well! But it is a sad fact that many NRP's (men as well as women) chose to let those ties disappear when they leave the marital home.

I was referring to the OP whose "mate" had his kids for a couple of days and objected to his ex having more money than him, The point I was trying to make (and obviously badly!!) was that it takes a lot more money for the PWC than most NRP's realise because they have them for 2 days out of 7. The other 5 as daisy pointed out whilst it is just a number, actually has a whole host more bills attached to it, something that you have seen from both sides.

But what about the court that denies visitation rights to the father because it is "too stressful on the mother"? What about the courts that will not enforce access and visitation orders for fear of upsetting the mother?

It is absolutely not right that either side should use the kids as weapons, and I really do understand what it is like for you losing that 6 months. We have not seen my partners children for over 3 years, and I see what it does to him. It is only now that we have some contact because they use the internet at school and call him when their mum is not there.

Dont shoot the messenger because I have seen it as my post says from both sides of the fence, as a parent with care and the partner to a NRP who came away with a £15,000 legal bill to not see his kids. If you feel so strongly, then maybe you should all join together and see what can be done to ensure that other parents have rights to see their kids and that this is enforced rather than the standard lip service that is given now.

I am sorry that I have disgusted you but I think if you read back over my posts you would see that I was merely voicing an opinion about the majority and not the minority. As Aussie has said I have nothing against anyone on this forum but obviously my opinions I should keep to myself!

dorks

daisy_doughnut_2 wrote: »

real1314
can i ask you does your friend pay half of all below
the car tax
insurance
mot
petrol
gas
electric
water
tv licence
any sky tv or telephone
rent/mortgage

.....cos - of course - the PWC wouldn't have any of these were it not for the child, so the NRP should pay half !?!? How much of the car tax, insurance, mot and TV license is attributable to the child? Suffice to say, if the child were not there, the PWC would still have all this!

You forgot to include the half they should pay for your clothes, make up, pub money, etc?