Child Maintenance Avoidance Via High Earning Spouse

FBaby

It is though taken into account for other things like tax credits etc. The rest of your post makes no sense.

That's because you are not getting it that supporting a child is not just about csa but about income as a whole, whatever the source. So once again, whereas the nrpp is only submitted to csa rules (in which case makes them exempt from supporting their step-child), the pwcp is submitted to many more rules which puts them in a legal position to have to support their step-children if their partner can do so fully.

Simply put, nrp stops working, can't contribute, not the nrpp's problem to make up the difference. Pwc can't work, can't contribute any longer, pwpp is expected to pick up the tab because they have a resident child under their roof.

Marisco

If I was in the position of the op's ex's wife, I would feel obligated to pay something, but it would be what I could comfortably afford though. However, I still don't think the CSA should be allowed to force NRPP's to pay maintenance for a child that isn't theirs.

FBaby

However, I still don't think the CSA should be allowed to force NRPP's to pay maintenance for a child that isn't theirs.

It wouldn't be about the nrpp having to pay instead, but that the liability of the nrp wouldn't stop just because he stops working. Maintenance becomes another bill to be paid. How it is paid is up to the family, not the csa to decide, but it doesn't go away just because the nrp decides to give up his job to become a SAHF to the detriment of his first children.

I believe that is the way it works in many other countries.

System

I believe that is the way it works in many other countries.

It sounds like the OP needs to emigrate and use their version of REMO to get what she wants then.

Marisco

FBaby wrote: »

It wouldn't be about the nrpp having to pay instead, but that the liability of the nrp wouldn't stop just because he stops working. Maintenance becomes another bill to be paid. How it is paid is up to the family, not the csa to decide, but it doesn't go away just because the nrp decides to give up his job to become a SAHF to the detriment of his first children.

I believe that is the way it works in many other countries.

Yes, but what can you do? If the NRP refuses to work and his wife is quite happy with that, then unless you force the NRPP to pay, there is very little that can be done. I agree, his liability doesn't stop, but some people don't have any "morals", you cannot legislate for that.

Personally I think she is as bad as he is, for agreeing to keep him, so he doesn't have to pay, he'd have got a kick up the jacksie from me and told to get a job. But I still don't think that partners should be legally liable, we'd be going down a pretty rocky road there IMO.

I'd be inclined to think he was a useless piece of detrius, let everyone know it, but let it go and not let it chew me up, especially when your really on a hiding to nothing. I believe the child is 15? Whilst I'm not normally in favour of bringing kids into arguments, in this case I think the child is old enough to know exactly what his father is doing and what he's like. Then in the words of "Frozen", just "Let it go".

shoe*diva79

Maybe arrears can be built up for the time the NRP isnt paying and then the arrears taken from assets such as house or car.

FBaby

Yes, but what can you do? If the NRP refuses to work and his wife is quite happy with that, then unless you force the NRPP to pay, there is very little that can be done

Well if the maintenance payment is still in place and he doesn't work, then the nrpp would have no choice but to pay, unless grand parents are prepared to step in!

I think there are different reasons why nrp who can afford to pay find ways not to. Very often, it is because they link visitation right with maintenance and I expect that's the situation for OP. I expect her ex assessment of the situation is that she manipulated the child so that he didn't want to visit any longer and concluded that if the child doesn't want anything to do with his father, then why should he supports him financially.

In the case of my ex, he struggles financially and sees me and OH enjoying new cars and nice holidays, so why should he make us even better off when we already have so much more than him and his new family. He can't see that a lot of it is a result of choices and sacrifices we've made.

System

It is a very dangerous road to go down if enacted. At what point do you stop? If the NRP then divorces or splits with the NRPP would the ex NRPP still have a duty/legal obligation to carry on paying if the NRP has a nil assessment against them? Would the next NRPP also have the the same obligation such that the PWC is getting 2 lots of maintenance.

As a myriad of NRPs have found, once CSA get there teeth into something then it is very difficult to get things changed.

Marisco

FBaby wrote: »

Well if the maintenance payment is still in place and he doesn't work, then the nrpp would have no choice but to pay, unless grand parents are prepared to step in!

Not sure what you mean here?? The NRPP does have a choice though, unless you mean they shouldn't? But then we are back to forcing a non parent to pay for someone elses' child, which can never be right, no matter which way you cut it. We can hope that most people would do the right thing, and they probably would, but it can't be right to legislate for the very few who won't surely?

I think it might cause resentment where there wasn't any, e.g if I was an NRPP and was giving my oh's ex money for the kid/s, then all of a sudden the CSA said I had to, and even worse, set out how much I'd have to pay, to say I'd be annoyed would be putting it lightly!!! I think the amount of parents who evade paying this way, is so small that it would cause more trouble than it's worth.

FBaby

!!!!!! wrote: »

It is a very dangerous road to go down if enacted. At what point do you stop? If the NRP then divorces or splits with the NRPP would the ex NRPP still have a duty/legal obligation to carry on paying if the NRP has a nil assessment against them? Would the next NRPP also have the the same obligation such that the PWC is getting 2 lots of maintenance.

As a myriad of NRPs have found, once CSA get there teeth into something then it is very difficult to get things changed.

It would never be the debt of the nrpp, it would be that of the nrp, of if separated, the responsibility would remain with the nrp to support his children. As he then wouldn't have the nrpp to do so, they would have to go back to getting a job.