Child Support....my idea

Robin-o'-the-Hood

BEFORE you shoot me down bear 2 things in mind:
1. I am speaking only from my own experience
2. It's late and I've had a few Bushmills (I don't have much money but standards must be maintained)

Long story short: Female partner abandoned 1 year old and me in dire financial straits; i applied for and granted residency, since then NRP has been mobile and active in companies that don't seem to do much/anything(?) but is still able to live in impressive houses in Surrey (CSA kept asking me what I knew of her so I researched) She's on her second marriage since we split up. Getting any money out of her has been the proverbial pulling of teeth.

My idea is...if the CSA/CMS can't get money out of a NRP through their income, relate it to their habitation. If the NRP can afford to live in a house that is in excess of their income owing to the largesse of a new partner/husband, then relate it to that. If this means the new husband/partner has to stump up then so be it: they would have to do the same if the NRP was a PWC. I simply don't see why a NRP should enjoy a lifestyle granted to them by a wealthier partner/husband should not 'filter down' to the PWC. (My impression of my son's mother is someone who does not work, or need to, taken care of by a person who can afford to allow her to be so)
Feel free to disagree, but bear in mind that I am speaking from my own perspective only

Robin-o'-the-Hood

My son is not 1 year old now...he's 9.

duchy

My he grew up fast :rotfl:


Would you feel that the assessment should work both ways so if the PWC was comfortable with a new partner and oodles of income then they should get less or even nothing too ?

FBaby

I agree and disagree. I am a strong believer that the responsibility to support your children, emotionally, psychologically and financially is that of both parents who conceived them, not that of anyone associated with parents. So no, I don't think nrp/pwc's partner should ever be made to pay towards their partner's kids, even though that is exactly what happens with pwc's partner.

However, I do think more onus should be put on BOTH parents to work and support themselves and their kids. ALL nrp should be made to pay a minimum level of maintenance. If it means they have to go and look for a job, or alternatively sign on, or agree with their partner that they get involved (rather than imposing it), then that's what it should be even if they don't need to do so to support themselves only.

Saying that, I think the same of pwc. I think that only expect single pwc to only work 16 hours even when their kids are in secondary school is ridiculous, same with a couple only needing to work 24 hours jointly and I'm glad UC will finally put an end to this.

MataNui

Unworkable, unfair, immoral and a whole load of other words.

So what you are saying is that because your ex has found a wealthy other partner you think you should deserve some of his wealth??

His money and his house are his. What he has is f**k all to do with you and if he happens to let your ex share it with him then that also is f**k all to do with you.

You how is this supposed to work in your eyes? She might have little or 0 income so you want the income to be assessed on his income or the total value of his assets for YOUR kids. You can tell you have been drinking (probably smoking something too).

Robin-o'-the-Hood

MataNui wrote: »

Unworkable, unfair, immoral and a whole load of other words.

It's not unworkable: basing a level of maintenance on property is easier than assessing other levels of wealth/income. CT bands are easily obtained.
Unfair: unfair on who? The new partner? Of course it is. If his/her partner is a NRP who won't contribute by getting work and facing up to their responsibilities then by bankrolling them its colluding with their delinquency. Ask any PWC struggling to get maintenance about 'fairness'.

Immoral: no its not. How is it exactly? The immorality is the NRP refusing to contribute to their children and hiding behind someone who is in a position to allow it.

So what you are saying is that because your ex has found a wealthy other partner you think you should deserve some of his wealth??

No. I believe there should be a certain level of maintenance for a child. The PWC is doing their bit and if the NRP refuses to do theirs where is the morality? If the NRP is failing in their duty then her and her new partner as a unit should take over that responsibility.
I haven't specified what the level of maintenance should be: you're assuming a great deal of money. I'm not.

His money and his house are his. What he has is f**k all to do with you and if he happens to let your ex share it with him then that also is f**k all to do with you.

In regard to him protecting the NRP from fulfilling their responsibilities he or she makes it the PWC's business.

You how is this supposed to work in your eyes? She might have little or 0 income so you want the income to be assessed on his income or the total value of his assets for YOUR kids. You can tell you have been drinking (probably smoking something too).

It works as above at the top. Years of the CSA failing to achieve anything makes me think it would be no worse. As for his assets for my kids...the point of my suggestion is that children are both parents responsibilities, not just mine. As I said, by helping his partner avoid their responsibility then they as a unit, could/should pay the NRP's share, assessed against a CT band.

The principle of new partners being held financially responsible for children is already acknowledged in law; I believe the income of a partner of a PWC is already taken into account in tax credit claims. But I might be wrong as I don't claim any.

[I]As I said, its a suggestion, based on my own circumstances and the failure of the CSA/CMS to get to grips with a real problem. I've no doubt that there would be problems with it but at least its thinking of the problem. There's not much evidence of any other thinking going on. I can appreciate there are partners of NRP who are angry seeing a proportion of their partner's income go on child support and perhaps resent it. That's tough. He or she has a responsibility.

PS. Not smoking anything MataNui and what I drank was clearly a lot less bitter than anything you might have imbibed.

Guest101

Karma, it comes around. Don't do it's work for it, just sit back and enjoy the show.

Robin-o'-the-Hood

FBaby wrote: »

I agree and disagree. I am a strong believer that the responsibility to support your children, emotionally, psychologically and financially is that of both parents who conceived them, not that of anyone associated with parents. So no, I don't think nrp/pwc's partner should ever be made to pay towards their partner's kids, even though that is exactly what happens with pwc's partner.

However, I do think more onus should be put on BOTH parents to work and support themselves and their kids. ALL nrp should be made to pay a minimum level of maintenance. If it means they have to go and look for a job, or alternatively sign on, or agree with their partner that they get involved (rather than imposing it), then that's what it should be even if they don't need to do so to support themselves only.

Saying that, I think the same of pwc. I think that only expect single pwc to only work 16 hours even when their kids are in secondary school is ridiculous, same with a couple only needing to work 24 hours jointly and I'm glad UC will finally put an end to this.

That is pretty much my belief...my suggestion is simply a frustrated response to the fact that this simply doesn't happen. I do work full-time, and took a pay cut to allow me to look after my son, my son's mother doesn't work as far as I know. (Director of companies that don't seem to do very much at all, no web presence, no office number, accommodation address etc)
I don't agree that NRPs should simply 'sign on' to pay maintenance though. That is shifting their financial responsibility to the taxpayer.
I do appreciate that my suggestion could be unfair. I'm not advocating any raid on the assets or income of a NRP's partner but that if the NRP is delinquent in maintenance then they as a unit pay what the NRP should pay. The difficulty is what at level the payment should be levied.

Robin-o'-the-Hood

duchy wrote: »

My he grew up fast :rotfl:

ha ha yes my 'clarification' needed a little more clarity! ...he was 1 when my partner left. He's 9 NOW!

Would you feel that the assessment should work both ways so if the PWC was comfortable with a new partner and oodles of income then they should get less or even nothing too ?

I see your point. However, the issue is that both the PWC and the NRP should BOTH be contributing and all too often it doesn't happen. If the PWC had or developed a good income or had a new partner with the same the NRP still has that responsibility.

Tammykitty

My husband has a daughter who he doesn't see (Mother has constantly blocked access and for various reasons he eventually stopped pursuing), Child is now 14 so hopefully she will make contact on her own now and she can hear his side of the story.


Husband is self employed on low income and does pay Child Support, I make a reasonable salary, however I would very much resent my salary going to support someone I don't even know.


In saying that, we do have a bank account to save for daughter, and the savings to this do come out of the household budget, so in a way I am contributing, but that is different than being forced to contribute via CSA or whatever they are now called

MataNui

"As I said, by helping his partner avoid their responsibility then they as a unit, could/should pay the NRP's share, assessed against a CT band."

He is not 'helping' anyone avoid responsibility. The ONLY person avoiding responsibility is your EX and that is 100% on them.

"The principle of new partners being held financially responsible for children is already acknowledged in law; I believe the income of a partner of a PWC is already taken into account in tax credit claims. But I might be wrong as I don't claim any."

Yes, both incomes are taken into account but to suggest that is similar is ridiculous. With CT both incomes are taken into account to determine a benefit to that unit. What you are suggesting is the incomes of 2 people are taken into account to determine a benefit to a third party of whom one of the people has no legal relationship with and may never have met or may never meet.

Additionally you have twice made reference to the 'ASSETS' in the sole name of a third party to whom neither you nor your child have any legal relationship with, being used to determine a benefit to you payable by them. If you cant see how perverse that you are seriously a lost cause.

Lets assume just for a second you get your way and what mine could become yours if i decide to have some brief fling with your ex. where exactly do you think that would end?

Clearly this would need to work both ways. If for example some rich widow decided to take you on then i assume you would be happy if your ex perhaps ended up paying nothing (if your new partner was rich enough) or is this just another one way to the PWC thing???

Of course this other person could avoid paying you a penny if they turfed your ex out onto the street. Or would you expect the CSA to take the view that they have now 'avoided' payment of 'their' responsibilities or taken some deliberate action to your detriment and should still pay?

I am not saying the current system is perfect. Or even acceptable. Its a compromise like anything else. It works great for some, OK for the majority and poorly for a minority. It has to balance the rights of both the PWC and NRP to be able to move on with their lives after the split and the need to ensure the child is supported by both parents and not the state.

Your suggestion though completely removes the right of the NRP to move on. NOBODY with the slightest bit of common sense would start a relationship with an NRP if it meant they would end up paying money to that persons ex based on their personal assets and income.

In interesting thing though is that with CSA1 the form said you had to put your partners details. It was a lie of course. There was never any legal obligation to do it although CSA frequently insisted it was completed. The only thing i ever put in that field was 'none of your f**king business'.