Wife's income and child benefit

FBaby

13Kent, clearly your situation looks incredibly unfair, although I have to say it does come across as a bit stereotypical in the horrible ex who had the affairs, built up debts using his card, lied about getting private maintenance and then somehow managed to get the full house and nothing in return. I am not saying you are lying, but I struggle to understand how he was left with absolutely nothing as the outcome of the divorce or why he would have been forced to sign the house over with nothing in exchange.

In any case, what thing I picked up in regards to the fairness towards pwcp vs nrpps is this

Her husband's income, and her child benefit and tax credits have never been taken into account as part of the household's income, even though her husband clearly contributes to their household income,

I'm not sure what you mean about his income being taken into account as household income. In regards to what? Clearly not csa as this only applies to maintenance. His income would have been taken into account when it came to tax credits, child benefit, housing benefits etc... As you said, he would have contributed towards the household, therefore automatically contributed towards children who are not his.

This is exactly my point. I do agree though that csa 1 was a wrong system and csa 2 was much more appropriate for its purpose, but I still strongly believe that when an nrp voluntary gives up his job, for whichever reason to live off his partner or an inheritance (as usually would struggle to get benefits anyway), the duty to pay maintenance at the same amount should remain.

13Kent

Sadly it's all true, the house was signed over as part of the divorce in an agreement that stated she had no further claim on his pension in later years, as he did not want to be linked with her in his twilight years when his children had long since grown up and left home.

He was left with less than nothing as he was just left with debts. Fortunately his job at the time came with a room to live in so he wasn't out on the street, but he literally had nothing. Things that belonged to him that he left in the house that he couldn't take to his room disappeared. The high CSA payments including the arrears for the money he had already paid coupled with the debts that he had to pay left him with hardly any money left at all on payday, despite the CSA deeming by their calculations that he was left with enough to live on - they did not consider any of the debts he was left with as they were in his name and she denied having anything to do with them. They also didn't consider the cost of buying usual household items such as crockery, cutlery, a kettle bedding etc etc which he needed but couldn't afford, as the money that he had left each month was spent on food, fuel and rent.

He had nowhere to take his children unless he visited them at the pwc's home or took them to stay with relatives. Once we got together I helped support him through his day to day needs, and welcomed his children into my home buying them the necessary things such as bedding toys and clothes to help us all enjoy the times when we had them. In that way I was already contributing towards children that were not mine a long time before we got married.

Of course her husband's income was taken into account as part of their income for their eligibility for child benefit etc, but not considered as far as the CSA were concerned. Yes he was contributing to the household income, but they also had children between them, he had moved into a house that someone else had already paid the mortgage on for years and that had 10+ years of equity in it, and he should be expected to contribute to the bills. My husband didn't want him to pay for children that were not his, but surely if the income in our household that the csa considered in their calculation included my income as I could contribute to the household bills, the his income should be also considered as he could contribute to the bills in their household equally giving the pwc more disposable income from her wages that she could put towards supporting her children, rather than the CSA assessing their household to have nil income and therefore they could not make a contribution towards the maintenance needed and we had to pay 100% of the maintenance needed for those children.

I fail to see how that can be fair, as I fail to see how on CSA1 our payments are nearly £600 a month, but on the CSA's own calculator if our assessment had been on CSA2 my husbands payments would have been £280 a month - which would have left him with some money to try to get his life back together. - thats an increased payment of about £300 a month on CSA1 compared with CSA2 which is £3600 a year for lets say 15 years of paying CSA which works out at £54,000 extra he will have paid on CSA1 which had he been on CSA2 he wouldn't have been liable to pay.

I agree that the NRP should pay their share towards their children, but I think that it should be a fair share, and assessments for household income should be applied in an equal manner. I believe that the CSA payments often leave one household in the situation having a significantly lower standard of living in comparison with the other household regardless of whether that household is the NRP's household or the PWC's household, which causes even more upset and friction to add to the pain of a family splitting up, and is detrimental to that family moving on a harmonious manner in the future.

I know there are winners and losers on both sides, not least the children that are tangled up in these disputes and often used as bargaining tools, but hopefully the newest system is a fairer one for all concerned.

justontime

13Kents story is not an isolated case, our story is very similar and I'm sure there are many people here who can identify with it.

Thankfully CSA1 will be coming to an end over the next two or three years, but that is too late for many people, the damage has been done in so many different ways. At least from now on people will have a fairer system.

All I can say to those like us who suffered with CSA1 for so long is don't give up! Keep doing your best, never give up hope, damaged relationships can be repaired. You can't changed the past but you can let go of the hurt and frustration and try to build a better future. We had some very dark times, I really can't find words to express how bad it was, but things are finally looking up for us. My husbands relationship with his kids is so much better and that terrible fear of not being in control of your life (that only people dealing with CSA will understand) is finally over.

I hope this gives some hope to others.

PreludeForTimeFeelers

There are also about 270,000 cases nil assessed on CS1 that would have been assessed at a minimum of £5 a week on CS2, so there were losers on both sides there.

13Kent

I know there are winners and losers on both sides, not least the children that are tangled up in these disputes and often used as bargaining tools, but hopefully the newest system is a fairer one for all concerned

I also said that in my post, Preludefortimefeelers. but two wrongs don't make a right - just because the pwc loses out in some cases it doesn't make it fair that the nrp loses out on a different system. It just highlights the unfairness of the whole system and I sincerely hope the newest system is fairer to all.

Marisco

FBaby wrote: »

but I still strongly believe that when an nrp voluntary gives up his job, for whichever reason to live off his partner or an inheritance (as usually would struggle to get benefits anyway), the duty to pay maintenance at the same amount should remain.

But then we are back to a NRPP paying from their own income. Yes, a NRP shouldn't give up work, but if they do, for whatever reason, a NRPP should still not be forced to pay the CM. Someone in this situation should pay something, but a NRPP should never be forced to though.

FBaby

My husband didn't want him to pay for children that were not his, but surely if the income in our household that the csa considered in their calculation included my income as I could contribute to the household bills, the his income should be also considered as he could contribute to the bills in their household equally giving the pwc more disposable income from her wages that she could put towards supporting her children, rather than the CSA assessing their household to have nil income and therefore they could not make a contribution towards the maintenance needed and we had to pay 100% of the maintenance needed for those children.

I'm sorry for your husband Kent and what he has been through, but I still don't understand the above. The maintenance due by the nrpp is his contribution to the children living costs. Why should this be affected by the pwpp income? It would be like saying that because the pwc can't contribute any longer, the nrp (and therefore the nrpp potentially) has to pay more maintenance to make up the difference?

Maybe I don't understand CSA1. Are you saying that if the income of the pwc household were to reduce, maintenance could automatically be reassessed and the nrp/nrpp having to contribute more to make up that difference?

If this is correct, then yes, I agree that system is outrageous.

But to go back to csa2 and the likes of it now, it remains that nrpp income is NEVER considered to help supporting the children financially whereas pwcp income continues to be so.

But then we are back to a NRPP paying from their own income. Yes, a NRP shouldn't give up work, but if they do, for whatever reason, a NRPP should still not be forced to pay the CM. Someone in this situation should pay something, but a NRPP should never be forced to though.

And I totally disagree with that. It's a family decision and therefore if the nrpp is prepare to support it, then they should be made to accept liability for ALL her partner's financial responsibilities, not just the ones that suits them.

Marisco

FBaby wrote: »

And I totally disagree with that. It's a family decision and therefore if the nrpp is prepare to support it, then they should be made to accept liability for ALL her partner's financial responsibilities, not just the ones that suits them.

But you are assuming that the NRPP is taking responsibility for his finances. What she is doing is, if you like, is keeping her household going, and he lives there, that doesn't mean to say that she has to take on all his debts etc. Do you also think that a PWCP should take on a PWC's debts etc?

I actually agree that the NRPP should pay something in these situations, but she shouldn't be obligated/made to, and it should be what she can afford, not what the CSA thinks she should pay, i.e the amount the NRP would have to pay if he had an income. No one can honestly expect a NRPP to do this surely?

FBaby

Do you also think that a PWCP should take on a PWC's debts etc?

So turn it around. The pwcp earns over £32k a year. The pwc earns £20K This means that they share the bills and pwc can support their children with maintenance without the support of the pwcp. They suddenly have a child together and they agree that the pwc will give up their job and look after the child. She can't claim tax credits as the pwcp income will be taken into account. Are you saying that the pwcp shouldn't be obliged to contribute towards the children with their income? That leaves the nrp. Should they be made to pay twice as much to make up for the loss of income from the pwc?

That's exactly what happens when an nrp gives up his job and yes, in the scenario above, the pwcp will have no choice but to support their step-children whether they like it or not (under the above circumstances).

Marisco

FBaby wrote: »

So turn it around. The pwcp earns over £32k a year. The pwc earns £20K This means that they share the bills and pwc can support their children with maintenance without the support of the pwcp. They suddenly have a child together and they agree that the pwc will give up their job and look after the child. She can't claim tax credits as the pwcp income will be taken into account. Are you saying that the pwcp shouldn't be obliged to contribute towards the children with their income? That leaves the nrp. Should they be made to pay twice as much to make up for the loss of income from the pwc?

That's exactly what happens when an nrp gives up his job and yes, in the scenario above, the pwcp will have no choice but to support their step-children whether they like it or not (under the above circumstances).

I agree that the NRPP should pay something, what I don't agree with is that the CSA sets the amount. The PWCP is not told how much he has to support step children, so why should the NRPP? I should imagine that unless the NRP has given up work specifically to avoid paying, then most NRPP's will be contributing something anyway.

But ultimately, it should always be left up to them though, no one should have any say on how a NRPP spends their money, anymore than a PWCP should be told how much to spend on step kids.