Csa brackets??

DUTR

Guest101 wrote: »

I can see both sides of this:

1: the NRP should really cherish all the time he can get with his kids.
2: it does sound like the PWC has arranged it so that she gets maximum money, whilst ensuring the NRP also has maximum spend with the kids. (51 extra days costs).
3: the logical solution is to agree 104 days - which normalises that. The NRP gets 2/7 contact. The PWC gets the right amount of money. (currently saving 51 days costs potentially)

I already thought that, but thankfully you came along and posted it.
If the tables were turned the replies would be different.

Guest101

DUTR wrote: »

I already thought that, but thankfully you came along and posted it.
If the tables were turned the replies would be different.

Hiya, sorry can you clarify what you mean - if the tables were turned? (i think i agree with what you mean )

DUTR

Guest101 wrote: »

Hiya, sorry can you clarify what you mean - if the tables were turned? (i think i agree with what you mean )

I mean if he was claiming for nights that just didn't occur eg he has them never but claiming 52nights to allow 1/7 reduction.
Like you and the other poster have suggested, it does look as if the nights close to the cut off have been selected for maximum income alone.
The nights could easily be adjusted for 104 or reduced to 51. One way is a win win, the other is a lose lose.

HappyMJ

Caz3121 wrote: »

would you be prepared to offer an additional 1 night per year to take it into the next bracket? how does the loss of 1/7th CSA compare to the loss of earnings if you were unable to work those days or have to pay for childcare?

Pedantic mode....it should already be reduced by 1/7. Reducing it one more step will reduce the current payment by 1/6. i.e CSA with no deductions could be £70. With a 1/7 reduction it's £60 and with 2/7th reduction it's £50 so therefore a further 1/6 reduction.

If I were the OP I'd accept the deduction myself so I could work more to support the child. The NRP will have costs (food) while the child is with the NRP so by not having them quite so much it should reduce the PWC's living (food) expenses by a small amount....Of course this all depends on how much the NRP earns.

Guest101

DUTR wrote: »

I mean if he was claiming for nights that just didn't occur eg he has them never but claiming 52nights to allow 1/7 reduction.
Like you and the other poster have suggested, it does look as if the nights close to the cut off have been selected for maximum income alone.
The nights could easily be adjusted for 104 or reduced to 51. One way is a win win, the other is a lose lose.

Ah yes, totally agreed

Lunar_Eclipse

I don't understand the suggestions of 104 nights (although I don't like the whole financial route this thread has taken...)

Thinking logically for a minute, or assuming that both parents would like as much contact as possible, do people not see how financially disadvantaged the RP usually is?

Maintenance payments are not huge, so the RP, whilst benefitting emotionally from seeing their kids more, are financially disadvantaged by higher costs (childcare & expenses) and (usually) lower earnings, often due to parental responsibilities. When you factor in gender, and more RPs being female and not male (I'm not saying that's fair), the gap widens, as women statistically earn less than men.

So if the OP is female, of course she shouldn't offer 104 days, though somewhere mid band would be better.

Guest101

Lunar_Eclipse wrote: »

I don't understand the suggestions of 104 nights (although I don't like the whole financial route this thread has taken...)

Thinking logically for a minute, or assuming that both parents would like as much contact as possible, do people not see how financially disadvantaged the RP usually is?

Maintenance payments are not huge, so the RP, whilst benefitting emotionally from seeing their kids more, are financially disadvantaged by higher costs (childcare & expenses) and (usually) lower earnings, often due to parental responsibilities. When you factor in gender, and more RPs being female and not male (I'm not saying that's fair), the gap widens, as women statistically earn less than men.

So if the OP is female, of course she shouldn't offer 104 days, though somewhere mid band would be better.

This doesn't make sense, sorry.

The RP is on the higher end of payments and highest level of practical support possible - suggesting it was manipulated deliberately to this effect.

FBaby

DUTR wrote: »

I already thought that, but thankfully you came along and posted it.
If the tables were turned the replies would be different.

No offense to both of you but it was Caz who came up with the suggestion first

FBaby

Maintenance payments are not huge, so the RP, whilst benefitting emotionally from seeing their kids more, are financially disadvantaged by higher costs (childcare & expenses) and (usually) lower earnings, often due to parental responsibilities. When you factor in gender, and more RPs being female and not male (I'm not saying that's fair), the gap widens, as women statistically earn less than men.

You're really making a generalisation here. In many cases, the maintenance amount IS very generous and it is the nrp with or without his new family that is worse off.

You seem to forget that rp get CB and tax credits for the children on top of maintenance and what they should contribute, so I think to calculate overnight stay to gain maximum tax credits is spiteful.

As I say, the fairer would be each to claim for one child and forget about maintenance. At least they could decide on 77 days, right in the middle of balancing overnight stay with maintenance, although I personally find it utterly pathetic to come down to this.

iammumtoone

LJD1973 wrote: »

I have an agreement with my ex that he has our 2 children, Friday after school till Monday before school every second weekend and 5 nights for 5 weeks in the school holidays ( 1 Easter, 2 summer, 1 autumn & 1 Xmas) total number of nights 103.
The CSA have based their assessment on that, the payment bracket being 52-103 nights.
My ex is now saying on that basis he will only agree to have the children 52 nights a year. Friday & Saturday every other weekend returning them at lunchtime on the Sunday and no holidays.
I'm a self employed educator in the beauty industry and teach courses every second Sunday and Monday.
I know he is only doing it to make my life difficult. Can I legally make him stick to our original agreement?

I have to say you have made you bed your need to lie in it, as a PWC myself I would say it looks like you have worked out how you could get your ex to have the kids 103 nights to maximize your maintenance.

You arrangement sounds about 'normal' they are with their dad every other weekend and a few weeks during the holidays, this is what I and many others will do HOWEVER in my case and which makes more sense is for the child(ren) to stay with the father 7 nights over the holidays, this is the 5 week day nights extra (whilst pwc is at work) and the normal two nights they would be staying anyway at the weekend. It makes things much easier and keeps the continuity of every other weekend going.

I think you need to be fair and take the reduction in maintenance for nrp having over 103 nights.