Is this right?!

solidpro

Mediation isn't 6 months of two court processes though is it? It doesn't sound like you've been to court regarding children?

Clearly the court didn't decide that you would be the better PWC

They don't decide anything like that. They decide to sign a shared care arrangement which was, at the time, a nicer way of saying joint custody. You can't get anymore than that, ever. That's them saying everyone is equal and both parents are primary carers.

Wasn't even aimed at you... Unless you have 2 accounts

Your statements were equally valid to me and our situation, so I felt it was.

solidpro

Yes when they are older you should explain if they ask. If your paying for the football club, why don't you take them, in your time?

So you're advocating me taking them to one side, and out of the blue explaining to them that their mother tried to stop them seeing their father more than 2 days a fortnight? Explain to them all the unreasonable things she did? What good would that do?

If I never have them on a monday evening and football club is on a monday evening, how am I supposed to do that? I either pay extra above CSA payment and never even know if they go, or they get told that daddy didn't want them to be happy.

Guest101

solidpro wrote: »

Mediation isn't 6 months of two court processes though is it? It doesn't sound like you've been to court regarding children? - Oh sorry didn't realise that made my opinion less valid.

They don't decide anything like that. They decide to sign a shared care arrangement which was, at the time, a nicer way of saying joint custody. You can't get anymore than that, ever. That's them saying everyone is equal and both parents are primary carers. - One parent is the PWC, always.

Your statements were equally valid to me and our situation, so I felt it was.

Feel free to feel how you wish. I was replying to a specific point by someone else.

Guest101

solidpro wrote: »

So you're advocating me taking them to one side, and out of the blue explaining to them that their mother tried to stop them seeing their father more than 2 days a fortnight? Explain to them all the unreasonable things she did? What good would that do? - IF THEY ASK. seriously, how can I make it clearer.

If I never have them on a monday evening and football club is on a monday evening, how am I supposed to do that? I either pay extra above CSA payment and never even know if they go, or they get told that daddy didn't want them to be happy.

It sounds like you aren't interested in reasonable solutions and just want to vent - which is fine, vent away.


Yes it doesn't sound pleasant, but that's the cards you've been dealt, play the hand or fold, its up to you.

solidpro

Oh sorry didn't realise that made my opinion less valid.

-i'm only saying that because some of your statements have been about courts and court orders, and then you said you had experience of that and then you said you haven't. I'm saying agreements in mediation is brilliant, when it stands but is far and away a different set of experiences and circumstances to court orders.

I would never be arguing that CSA should be making decisions based on granular and very unique mediations, but they absolutely should be making a stronger decision when there is a court order - not effectively consider it irrelivent.

One parent is the PWC, always.

Which is absolutely wrong in many cases with the CSA - surely they should be advocating equal rights and parental involvement - not making ONE parent always nominated as more 'acceptable' than the other.

The court makes no comment or judgement on PWC or anything financial whatsoever.

The 'game' isn't over for 15 years, so no hand to play.

solidpro

I spoke to the CMS today because I wanted to ask if they had anything in writing that states what a CMS/CSA payment is supposed to cover.

This would give those who care for their children equally, but forced to pay an excessive amount to the other parent something to forward on to that person when being asked to contibute toward more and more things.

The only thing he could point me to was this:

With a statutory child
maintenance arrangement, the
parent with main the day-to-day
care of the child is responsible
for deciding how to spend the
money they get. So if you’re
worried about this, try your best
to sort out child maintenance
between yourselves.

Which is on page 37 of this: http://www.cmoptions.org/en/pdfs/refresh/talking-about-money-aug-2015.pdf

He said that the CSA payment should be the only payment you make, and the point of a CSA/CMS payment is because a private arrangement is not possible. So there should be no kind of private payment along with the CSA.

I really wanted though something clearer so that when I argue that it's not up to me to fund a new pair of school shoes, that the CSA payment is what that's for. It's not very clear, is it?

Guest101

solidpro wrote: »

-i'm only saying that because some of your statements have been about courts and court orders, and then you said you had experience of that and then you said you haven't. I'm saying agreements in mediation is brilliant, when it stands but is far and away a different set of experiences and circumstances to court orders. - I have had experience of court, I just have not required a court order for child arrangement.

I would never be arguing that CSA should be making decisions based on granular and very unique mediations, but they absolutely should be making a stronger decision when there is a court order - not effectively consider it irrelivent. - But in what way are they considering it irrelevant?



Which is absolutely wrong in many cases with the CSA - surely they should be advocating equal rights and parental involvement - not making ONE parent always nominated as more 'acceptable' than the other. - The parent with care is not necessarily the one deemed to be a better parent. It's the parent primarily responsible, for example ensuring they attend school, ensuring that they have uniforms, etc etc.

The court makes no comment or judgement on PWC or anything financial whatsoever. - what do you mean?

The 'game' isn't over for 15 years, so no hand to play.

There's plenty more to do. You've got what is considered a good deal, be pleased

Guest101

solidpro wrote: »

I spoke to the CMS today because I wanted to ask if they had anything in writing that states what a CMS/CSA payment is supposed to cover.

This would give those who care for their children equally, but forced to pay an excessive amount to the other parent something to forward on to that person when being asked to contibute toward more and more things.

The only thing he could point me to was this:



Which is on page 37 of this: http://www.cmoptions.org/en/pdfs/refresh/talking-about-money-aug-2015.pdf

He said that the CSA payment should be the only payment you make, and the point of a CSA/CMS payment is because a private arrangement is not possible. So there should be no kind of private payment along with the CSA.

I really wanted though something clearer so that when I argue that it's not up to me to fund a new pair of school shoes, that the CSA payment is what that's for. It's not very clear, is it?

Its been explained right there for you.

solidpro

But in what way are they considering it irrelevant?

They don't ask and don't care when working anything out. It's all based on the one parent paying no matter what, on that payer's income and trying to divide an odd number (7) by 2 and getting an even answer.

The parent with care is not necessarily the one deemed to be a better parent. It's the parent primarily responsible, for example ensuring they attend school, ensuring that they have uniforms, etc etc.

This is what the CMS say:

In child support law:
• the parent who receives child maintenance is known as the ‘parent with care’ - we call them
the ‘receiving parent’
• the parent who pays child maintenance is known as the ‘non-resident parent’ - we call them
the ‘paying parent

Calling my partner the 'parent with care' when we have a Shared Care Arrangement court judgement is plain wrong. How can I be a non-resident parent when they sleep with me 3-3.5 nights a week, have all their belongings here, christmas here, school uniforms, holidays and all the teachers see me more than their mother?

The courts service changed the term Joint Custordy to Shared Care Arrangement because it was causing aggrieved situations with (mainly) mothers worse, because it was too much of a 'badge of honour' term to give up. Then 'shared care arrangement' was also determined as inflaming court cases, so it was renamed to something else.

Stating one parent is PWC is the same as a 'contact order' whereby one parent still is the primary carer - which is nothing like a shared care order, where both parents are absolutely equal.

The court makes no comment or judgement on PWC or anything financial whatsoever. - what do you mean?

What I said. During the whole court process, they do not want to hear about money, don't want to talk about money and won't make any judgement on money. Once you have a shared care order, there is no primary carer - that's the whole point.

The parent with care is not necessarily the one deemed to be a better parent. It's the parent primarily responsible, for example ensuring they attend school, ensuring that they have uniforms, etc etc.

So on the 3 mornings every fortnight there is school and they wake up in our house, I am not expected to ensure they get to school, and ensure they have a uniform? You're expecting the PWC to give me 3 spare uniforms one morning for the next three mornings I'm taking them to school? It just doesn't work that way. I have to buy uniforms and if you think most mothers who have bothered to go to the CSA are then going to give it back to the other parent to go buy uniforms then you've living in a dream world.

Guest101

solidpro wrote: »

They don't ask and don't care when working anything out. It's all based on the one parent paying no matter what, on that payer's income and trying to divide an odd number (7) by 2 and getting an even answer.



This is what the CMS say:



Calling my partner the 'parent with care' when we have a Shared Care Arrangement court judgement is plain wrong. How can I be a non-resident parent when they sleep with me 3-3.5 nights a week, have all their belongings here, christmas here, school uniforms, holidays and all the teachers see me more than their mother?

The courts service changed the term Joint Custordy to Shared Care Arrangement because it was causing aggrieved situations with (mainly) mothers worse, because it was too much of a 'badge of honour' term to give up. Then 'shared care arrangement' was also determined as inflaming court cases, so it was renamed to something else.

Stating one parent is PWC is the same as a 'contact order' whereby one parent still is the primary carer - which is nothing like a shared care order, where both parents are absolutely equal.

What I said. During the whole court process, they do not want to hear about money, don't want to talk about money and won't make any judgement on money. Once you have a shared care order, there is no primary carer - that's the whole point.

I think I'll bow out of this as I don't see the problem, and perhaps others will / do. But to me it's semantics and far better to concentrate on life than on 'badges'


I have never had a problem with paying child maintenance, even if I had them more. It was always clear that the money was used to fund clubs, uniforms etc etc.


Clearly that's not your situation, but that is not a problem with the system, but rather a problem with your specific ex.