Is this Right?

aussiesbird

I am sorry to hear that DJoiner will not be returning to this forum. I was under the impression that this forum was here to provide a place for people to share their experiences and offer advice and support where they can. It saddens me to hear that some people have to resort to such personal attacks such as the PM's that DJoiner states he had after posting here. If you have something to say at least have the guts to share it with us so that we can all give a view on your comments and discuss like adults. These comments were obviously nasty and unjustified and I for one will not tolerate someone on here who personally attacks someone else just because they have a different point of view.
I hope DJoiner comes back on and realises that the messages he received are from a minority of pinheads who use this forum. And overall we are a good bunch all in a similar situation in one way or another!!

Zara33

DJoiner wrote: »

I have only just logged in after making these comments to find 3 abusive pms from angry mothers who do not know anything about my circumstances, and I cannot believe how judgmental people can be - thank you to those whose advice helped me, esp kellogs, but i will not be returning to this man hating forum again.

That's just out of order!! report these pm's and don't let some pathetic people who have no guts do this.

Zara33

dorks wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, can you refer me to a thread where she has helped a NRP? From the posts I have seen, she is INCREDIBLY anti NRPs? I watch these threads with interest, but rarely comment as it is not a particularly helpful board - more of a place for a place for people to vent their anger (and I am not just being anti PWC here - e.g. I also think Master99 - the ultimate venter of "his" anger - is well over the top)

There are a few helpful comments but there is ALWAYS a large discussion as well whereby posts from PWCs are slagged off by NRPs and vice versa so the people seeking help are always ending up feeling annoyed and having to defend themselves. The OP most of the time is just asking for help - not opinions. I wish the moderator would do something about moving some of the more aggressive/unhelfpul posts out of this whole board and perhaps into the discussion board.

...and I am under absolutely no illusion that I wont get some form of aggressive response back to this which will probably wind me up and draw me into some petty war of words, but hey, I have said my piece.

I think you will find that she has helped on this thread and i think you will always find the CSA an emotional subject for many parents whether it be the NRP or the PWC everybody has issues with the current set up.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion...but abuse should not be tolerated, we should be able to discuss the CSA like adults, and yes sometimes things might get a bit heated.

Banana23

aussiesbird wrote: »

I was not aiming my post at you personally I am speaking generally.
With regard to the points you raised.
One group of people that won't get working families tax credits will be where the adult family members don't work. However, they will be claiming benefits from the state anyhow so the amount of mainenence from the CSA will be restricted by that.
"CTC are obviously used towards childcare (and that doesn't cover the total amount that has to be spent on care as you'll probably know)."
I personally don't get CTC but are you suggesting that the government should pay for all the childcare?!!
That would mean that a PWC would be entitled to go out to work and earn as much as they could, get child maintenece from the NRP (rightly so, at a fair rate!) and get all their child care costs paid for!! And the CSA would only base their calculations on the NRP - hardly fair is it?
The CSA need to readdress their regulations with regard to NRP.

Nah, I wasn't thinking that your post was against me personally
I'm working full time and I don't get WFTC, you only get it if you get below 11K or something (as an earnings top up)
No, am not suggesting the state should pay for all childcare! That would be unfair against quite a few people. It is usually for people like me, who are single parent families and have one income, not two.
As I said, I agree with you that the CSA needs to reassess their system in terms of payments that are made by some Nrp's.

TheWaltons_3

I can't see why anyone would be PMg Djoiner and having a go at him... when that little Toad 'Master99' is on the loose - go PM him for !!!!!!

kelloggs36

dorks wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, can you refer me to a thread where she has helped a NRP? From the posts I have seen, she is INCREDIBLY anti NRPs? I AM NOT ANTI NRPS I will help anybody to achieve a correct assessment in law. I won't help somebody to fiddle their figures to lower the amount as it is illegal to do this. I have suggested to many an NRP that they request account breakdowns and to PM me with details - I have had many PM me asking for help and they have thanked me for it. I watch these threads with interest, but rarely comment as it is not a particularly helpful board - more of a place for a place for people to vent their anger (and I am not just being anti PWC here - e.g. I also think Master99 - the ultimate venter of "his" anger - is well over the top)

There are a few helpful comments but there is ALWAYS a large discussion as well whereby posts from PWCs are slagged off by NRPs and vice versa so the people seeking help are always ending up feeling annoyed and having to defend themselves. The OP most of the time is just asking for help - not opinions. I wish the moderator would do something about moving some of the more aggressive/unhelfpul posts out of this whole board and perhaps into the discussion board.

...and I am under absolutely no illusion that I wont get some form of aggressive response back to this which will probably wind me up and draw me into some petty war of words, but hey, I have said my piece.

I will help anybody who needs help to achieve what they should either be getting or paying in law.

kelloggs36

DJoiner wrote: »

As I explained before, I have allowed my ex this money until she got herself on her feet - which they now are. Now that she is to be married, I do not feel responsible for my ex's well being, and i refuse to contribute towards it. My children on the other hand will always have everything they need - and no one could accuse me of being an absent parent.

Kelloggs - when I said contribution I meant a financial one, and I still believe its unfair that a mother is not expected to finance her children if she is working and can afford to. Her physical contribution towards looking after the children is no greater than mine as I have them half the time. School uniform, holidays etc are all things that I pay for and while I agree that peak months, christmas and birthdays, will go over the £200 mark - there is no need for any child to have multiple games consoles and two different bmx bikes so in the case of my ex, i'm afraid this doesn't hold.

I have only just logged in after making these comments to find 3 abusive pms from angry mothers who do not know anything about my circumstances, and I cannot believe how judgmental people can be - thank you to those whose advice helped me, esp kellogs, but i will not be returning to this man hating forum again.

But she is, you don't seem to be understanding what I am saying. Just by the fact that she looks after the children in her house the majority of the time costs money - her money as much as yours. You are not expected to pay in full for the children, but how would you suggest that the PWC pay financially as a separate entity? Should she take money out and pay herself? It is a ludicrous suggestion and not one which is possible to implement.

Kimitatsu

dorks wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, can you refer me to a thread where she has helped a NRP? From the posts I have seen, she is INCREDIBLY anti NRPs? I watch these threads with interest, but rarely comment as it is not a particularly helpful board - more of a place for a place for people to vent their anger (and I am not just being anti PWC here - e.g. I also think Master99 - the ultimate venter of "his" anger - is well over the top)

There are a few helpful comments but there is ALWAYS a large discussion as well whereby posts from PWCs are slagged off by NRPs and vice versa so the people seeking help are always ending up feeling annoyed and having to defend themselves. The OP most of the time is just asking for help - not opinions. I wish the moderator would do something about moving some of the more aggressive/unhelfpul posts out of this whole board and perhaps into the discussion board.

...and I am under absolutely no illusion that I wont get some form of aggressive response back to this which will probably wind me up and draw me into some petty war of words, but hey, I have said my piece.

No aggressive response from me dorks but I have to say that in our household we are a NRP and a PWC (2 seperate cases) and Kellogs has been really helpful with both!

With our NRP case she has explained why we cannot transfer to the new system and has also given us an indication of what we SHOULD be paying under the old system, rather than what we are. As for the PWC case - well its well documented on this forum.

In her defence I would say that the NRP's that dont like the advice they are given on here is because it does not go in their favour, and they feel slighted, not because kellogs is giving them bad advice or even advice that is biased.

At the end of the day any PWC will tell you how expensive it is to pay for a child, and believe me £200 a month does not go far when you have growing children. What is adequate as a baby is certainly not as they get into double figures, and by that time many PWCs are working. Perhaps that is what the CSA should be looking at is realistic costs as the child grows although then many NRP's have moved on with their lives and often have a second family, and as others have said on here, if you keep increasing the maintenance then it is difficult to afford.

There is no easy solution to the CSA but in the majority of cases at least the PWC gets something rather than nothing, and for those NRP's who wont rather than cant pay then it is a way of logging the fact and ensuring that at some point they have to pay.

Kimitatsu

Kelloggs - when I said contribution I meant a financial one, and I still believe its unfair that a mother is not expected to finance her children if she is working and can afford to. Her physical contribution towards looking after the children is no greater than mine as I have them half the time. School uniform, holidays etc are all things that I pay for and while I agree that peak months, christmas and birthdays, will go over the £200 mark - there is no need for any child to have multiple games consoles and two different bmx bikes so in the case of my ex, i'm afraid this doesn't hold.

DJJoiner - report the abuseive pms, everyone has a right to air their opinions, even master99 :rotfl:

There was a study some years ago that estimated if we had to pay mothers for the jobd they did around the household their average salary would be in excess of £18,000 per annum. If you take that as a base figure then if you are getting away with paying her any less than £9000 a year you have a bargain! Whilst I undersatnd that you have your kids a lot, she still has to clothe them, feed them heat the house etc etc. She has no choice because she has the children, and this is the part that the majority of NRP's fail to understand. You cannot eat chips or toast because you are short of money, or not heat the house, or not pay for the school trip. All of this comes out of her money as well as your maintenance.

I know your case is slightly different as she has other sources of income but I read on this board this week that one NRP stated that the PWC would have to heat the house anyway so the child would benefit whatever!! They seemed to miss the point that a PWC works around their children so losing their own income and pension entitlement to look after them as well as incurring more costs to keep the house warm etc as the children are not at school from 8 - 6.

Until someone brings out specific costs neither side will agree, the NRP will never believe how much it costs and the PWC will not be able to prove it.

repsolblade

kelloggs36 wrote: »

As I said life aint fair! Why should your ex have to stump up all the extra when you can easily afford to help out in proportion to what you earn.

What extra are you reffering to exactly?