CSA Calculator on GOV website wrong?

solidpro

One way to achieve 7/7 is to do a week / fortnight with each parent, continuously.

I think it's unfair for two children that have seen both parents every other day from birth, to then every other few days to then only every other week. We do what is best, given the circumstances but that would never been 7 days straight either way.

It's also unfair on the parent, as a secondary argument.

Why were you in magistrates court? I'm confused by this.

Depending on the workload of the courts, you can end up either with a single judge or with a panel of magistrates. There is no fixed process. We had to wait 3 months to get a date which provided a whole day of giving evidence and both parties being cross-examined, and that was via a magistrates court.

Guest101

solidpro wrote: »

.

Yeah, she was gradually breaking everything mediated, but was not written down and stamped by a judge in the first, shorter and simpler order (which did actutally include the Shared Care Arrangement) - such as preventing them leaving her house when they had a cold, reading her own interpretations into things like 'after pre-school' when pre-school changed from an afternoon to a morning, I would turn up and the children would not be there - because she interpreted that as a 3.30 collection still and not an 11.30 collection.

Basically she was out of control and we had to go back again to get every last single tiny facet of how things work in black and white, and that's exactly why there is absolutely no adjustment to that, or subtle changes to what we have, or the expectation that she would happily sign away £40,000 of money from me over the next 15 years.

That's also why we are using the CSA. She kept pushing for more and more money, so in the end the CSA was better than that. But still unfair.

But you're still paying more than that? So I don't see how the CSA has helped at all?


Look, I sympathise of course, but that's what your dealing with. £40,000 to ensure you see your kids almost half the time and don't need to deal with her BS? - sounds like a bargain.

Guest101

solidpro wrote: »

I think it's unfair for two children that have seen both parents every other day from birth, to then every other few days to then only every other week. We do what is best, given the circumstances but that would never been 7 days straight either way.

It's also unfair on the parent, as a secondary argument.



Depending on the workload of the courts, you can end up either with a single judge or with a panel of magistrates. There is no fixed process. We had to wait 3 months to get a date which provided a whole day of giving evidence and both parties being cross-examined, and that was via a magistrates court.

So it's a combined family court? I understand.


How long ago was this? As you've not mentioned Cafcass involvement at all.

solidpro

But you're still paying more than that? So I don't see how the CSA has helped at all?

Our private arrangement assured her much more - I was in a low place and doing more than I should have including agreeing to give her much more than was necessary. Soon that wasn't enough and so she brought in the CSA which awarded her a lot less.

Look, I sympathise of course, but that's what your dealing with. £40,000 to ensure you see your kids almost half the time and don't need to deal with her BS? - sounds like a bargain.

That's the only conclusion that I use to somehow attempt to mitigate all the negatives, over the years. Basically it's a lot of money to keep things on an even keel. I still re-evaluate every few years though if anything has changed. I felt the wording on the GOV website was wrong.

CAFCASS were involved. At the second hearing when she raised the point about me being abusive, we successfully argued that you can't make a statement like that without more hearings with evidence and witnesses. She stated she wasn't prepared to do that, so it was wiped from the case and as she had, during interviews with CAFCASS had stated she had absolutely no concerns about me and my care for them, CAFCASS concluded they had no concerns about the welfare of the children and bowed out.

solidpro

The PWC is expected to provide certain things, such as school uniforms, childcare, etc. Which is what the maintenance is for.

Do you know of any official (GOV) website or CMS literature that actually state this? I think she believes it's for chocolate and netflix.

Specifically school shoes, uniforms and school lunches, which I pay for ontop of the CSA payment.

Guest101

solidpro wrote: »

Do you know of any official (GOV) website or CMS literature that actually state this? I think she believes it's for chocolate and netflix.

Specifically school shoes, uniforms and school lunches, which I pay for ontop of the CSA payment.

Well what does she says the payment is for?

solidpro

Well what does she says the payment is for?

My ex? If and when it comes up that she asks me to contribute towards a new Viola, then you're right, I will ask her what she thinks it's for.

I'm guessing give it a few more years, and the rotten comments that come from her mouth when I refuse will fall on deaf ears, and the risks of that happening will be diminished, but I feel young children should be best shielded from whatever !!!!!!!! they can be shielded from.

Guest101

solidpro wrote: »

My ex? If and when it comes up that she asks me to contribute towards a new Viola, then you're right, I will ask her what she thinks it's for.

I'm guessing give it a few more years, and the rotten comments that come from her mouth when I refuse will fall on deaf ears, and the risks of that happening will be diminished, but I feel young children should be best shielded from whatever !!!!!!!! they can be shielded from.

I agree with you on this.


I appreciate it's not easy

13Kent

solidpro wrote: »

It's my belief that the CSA exists to step in when two grown adults can't both act like responsible adults when it comes to caring for the children.
.

In our case the CSA got involved as the PWC started claiming income support and in that scenario the CSA are automatically notified.

Things had been relatively amicable regarding finances until the CSA became involved and then it became a battleground......