Access denied ?

Neveragain21

Im a seperated dad and I have asked my ex for more access to look after my kids ,
I currently get them 6 overnights per month as per our agreement, and would like to increase it to 7+ ,

But in doing so will take me into the next threshold for reducing payments to her , hence why she is not aggreing to it as she will receive less money from me ,

What can I do to see my kids more ?

WYSPECIAL

Shouldn't do as you will still be in the 52-101 nights per year bracket.

You could try to come to a private agreement.

warby68

Keep paying anyway

Or do you want to pay less and that's your motivation as well?

13Kent

warby68 wrote: »

Keep paying anyway

Or do you want to pay less and that's your motivation as well?

That is an unnecessary comment.

Unfortunately some PWC choose to reduce the contact that a NRP has with their children because the NRP's payments will reduce. I don't think as a NRP there is anything you can do about that sadly.

warby68

13Kent wrote: »

That is an unnecessary comment.

Unfortunately some PWC choose to reduce the contact that a NRP has with their children because the NRP's payments will reduce. I don't think as a NRP there is anything you can do about that sadly.

A parent can pay what they want towards bringing their children up whatever the 'rules' say. You don't HAVE to pay less just because a rule book allows you to.

My point is that the motivation can be on either side.

Guest101

Or go to court and get an increased order

13Kent

warby68 wrote: »

A parent can pay what they want towards bringing their children up whatever the 'rules' say. You don't HAVE to pay less just because a rule book allows you to.

My point is that the motivation can be on either side.

I quite agree, but for a lot of NRP's it's not about the money it's about seeing their children and the CSA (or CMS-whatever you want to call it) seems to encourage PWC to stop the NRP's from seeing their children in order to stop their maintenance reducing. It's unfair that they are allowed to do this.

Everyone has their own story and their own opinion based on the experience they have had and which side of the fence they are on. It's unfortunate that the CSA system continues to be a system which is weighted in favour of the PWC rather than being a fair system for both parties.

warby68

13Kent wrote: »

I quite agree, but for a lot of NRP's it's not about the money it's about seeing their children and the CSA (or CMS-whatever you want to call it) seems to encourage PWC to stop the NRP's from seeing their children in order to stop their maintenance reducing. It's unfair that they are allowed to do this.

Everyone has their own story and their own opinion based on the experience they have had and which side of the fence they are on. It's unfortunate that the CSA system continues to be a system which is weighted in favour of the PWC rather than being a fair system for both parties.

But this NRP mentioned seeing them more and paying less in the same breath.

Keep paying and I am sure there would be more willing PWCs - it might not be viewed as 'fair' by you but it would achieve the aim, if that is the only aim, of seeing the children more.

13Kent

In an ideal world I'm sure that would be the case.

My husband has never missed a payment in more than 15 years. in fact he has paid more than he has needed to, not only paying arrears for money which the NRP denied she had received, but he also paid the bills and the mortgage for a time in addition to the required child maintenance after they split up, and paid for school uniform and school trips. (And no, before you ask it wasn't his guilty conscience, as she was the one who had a series of affairs and then decided she didn't want him living there any more).

Sadly making sure he paid whatever the CSA have asked and more hasn't meant that we have been able to see his children when we have wanted to, or even for that matter on days when we have planned to have them, being told at the last minute that we couldn't have them that weekend. It has never been about the money, it's been about him being able to have a relationship with his children, being able to tuck them up in bed when they were younger at least a few times a month, being able to spend time with them, and later for them and our children to be able to develop a loving relationship through regular contact.

I really wish it was that simple.

justontime

13Kent wrote: »

In an ideal world I'm sure that would be the case.

Well said 13Kent, my husbands circumstances are very similar to your case, he also paid over the odds in It takes a lot of effort to pay CSA and still have the resources to provide a proper home for the children whenever they are with the paying parent, not to mention feeding, clothing and them and paying for travel costs to maintain a meaningful parental relationship. There are good and bad on both sides, but it's far too easy to condemn a NRP as just wanting to reduce their support payments. It is not unreasonable to want a fair arrangement which allows the children to have two loving and involved parents.

We have had some very dark times, but for my husband it has all come good in the end and he has a close relationship with his (grown up) children. It has worked out better than we dared hope.

13Kent

I'm glad for you, we haven't got there yet, but we're hoping....