Is this right?!

Boot28

Mojisola wrote: »

One of a parent's main jobs is saying 'No' to their children - especially when it's only a 'want'!

I agree. I didn't mean sweets/ toys, i mean occasional treat to the cinema etc.

Boot28

13Kent wrote: »

Welcome to the world of the CSA - or CMS or whatever it is called now!!

Unfortunately it seems to be weighted to be unfair to the Non Resident Parent.

I have to re-iterate what some of the others say, pay the CSA but get a bit stricter with other things that you pay out for - my husband was like you - paying for school uniform, school trips, after school activities, and even household bills such as TV license and house insurance. He just couldn't afford it and live himself, paying for as you say a big enough house so that they could come to stay, a decent car so that he could pick them up safely, and clothes, bedding, kids cups, plates and toys for when they came to visit. She had the house redone inside and was having foreign holidays,including Disney.We had a couple of nights in a tent or caravan as that was all we could afford.

She obviously wasn't going short, and he had to start being strict and stop paying for the extras telling her she had to get them out of the CSA money. She wasn't happy and tried to use the children as blackmail - "you tell them that they can't do Tai Kwondo because you won't pay for it" - he didn't pay any extra, and they still did it - she found the money.

However what I will say is cherish the time you have with your son, my husband would have dearly loved to have had his children as often as that, and sadly had to put up with 2 nights every 2 weeks - if he was lucky and the NRP allowed it. She didn't let him see them any more than that or her money would be reduced. So make the most of every minute, and I hope for you and your son's sake that that doesn't change.

Thank you, I'm sorry your partner had such an awful time, the whole system is wrong.
Hopefully when the kids are older (and if he wants to tell them) they will understand just how much he did and how their mum was the one who cut visiting with their dad for the sake of money.
Its the mother who will lose out in the end.

Losing any access to him is my biggest fear, and this is why I came on here to see if what I am paying is right. It is too much of a risk to tell her i wont pay for anything extra, incase she did cut the nights I have him.

Boot28

3wisemonks wrote: »

I really feel for your situation we've been there.

I would advise you to tread VERY carefully here.

As you have your child 'extra' nights on top of the 175 a year you could inform CSM but PWC would have to confirm this. These could still be counted but this is whether or not PWC will agree.

You should not need to pay for half of anything, this of course depends on what it is as the extras add up and PWC may need a bit of extra help now and again but it needs to be reasonable.

However, and this is why I say tread carefully. When DHs ex went to CSA (despite agreement set up between them where she was better off) they informed her she should be paying him as DH had child more nights, because of this she reduced him to 1 night a week!
We went through a period of struggling ourselves and DH struggled to contribute to extras and she punished him by withdrawing contact.

None of this is fair and I hope you have a better relationship with PWC if you do try talking to her, explain how you are finding the extras difficult and could maintenence payments cover these. PWC may not realise you are finding it difficult and not all react like ours did but only you can judge.

I wish you all the best.

Thank you for the advice.

I unfortunately cannot guarantee the amount of nights I have him over 175, so i think I will be stuck on the 175 mark.

Absolutely shocking and disgraceful how she reduced contact for the sake of money. This is exactly why the CSA calculations do not work. If it was not based on only wage and the amount of nights, but also if circumstances were included, I'm sure that there would be a lot more people with 50/50 agreements.

Boot28

- What she has is literally not relevant in the slightest. Whether she had hundreds or millions. You have a child, you pay what you can. (the government only sets out the minimum)

That is such a poor comment. If income was irrelevant, why is the amount of CSA I pay based on it. As everyone else says, CSA is biased and unfair against the paying parent. My child gets a hell of a lot more money than what he needs. Or rather my ex does. I would love to treat him to a random fun weekend away. But i cant, because of the amount I'm paying, money she doesn't need or even use on him.

And before you start quoting with more silly comments, I know it isn't the CSA's fault that she doesn't use all the money on him, but it is their fault that i pay so much more than what is required.

'I pay full wack, as well as £160 every 4 week, although sometimes i have our son more than her in that time. - So pay the correct amount and nothing more. Your child can benefit more on you spending it directly on him.'

- EXACTLY my child would benefit more me spending the money on him myself. The whole point we are making.

Its easy to say ' you shouldnt buy clothes then as this is what maintenance is for' - I didn't say clothes, I said uniforms, child care, etc.

2000 on uniforms, i provide childcare anyway, what else can she spend all that on that i dont provide when he is with me.....?

as a parent, when your son needs or wants something, you cant tell them no, and also risk being threatened that you wont see your son as much if you disagree. - then get a court order. And keep the clothes at your place.

-a court order for what? custody? the judge could easily say he must stay with her as she lives closer to his school, an me just be a weekend dad. meaning i see him even less. Court is what I am trying to avoid.

Time to grow up a bit and stop worrying about 'fair'

Love this one... the whole thread is talking about what is right/fair.
You seem to be the type of person who likes to disagree for the sake of disagreeing, as evident saying the 2000 i pay should be spent on uniforms etc, then later on saying they only need 1 uniform for 3 days (which is just plain wrong).

If i said the sky was blue, im sure that there would be a quote and a little red comment suggesting otherwise.

Sorry if i have somehow misjudged you, and i am truly pleased for you that your happy with your agreement with your kids mother, but judging on your comments to solidpro, you are of no help to us, and daft comments are just a waste of everyones time.

13Kent

Guest101 wrote: »

3 spare uniforms? No. one uniform is more than sufficient for 3 days.

I wish I could get away with one uniform for 3 days with my children!! Jumpers get left in school, or come home with dinner down them, trousers end up with grass stains on the knees, and shirts get all sorts of marks on them.

Sometimes it's not practical just to wash one or two items - if you hand wash them they won't dry, and you can't just put one jumper in the washing machine. Not everyone has the luxury of a drier!

Our PWC used to send the children in the grubbiest oldest clothes that often didn't fit or were inappropriate for the season. We used to buy them a full sets of clothes, shoes, nightwear and coats so that they had decent clothes to wear when they were with us. But of course that was wrong as the children complained bitterly that they weren't the "designer label" clothes that they had at Mum's. (funny enough they were never wearing those on the days we collected them!).

They used to put their own clothes back on to go back to the PWC (after I had washed and ironed them) but wear the clothes we bought that were left in their rooms for when we had them.

solidpro

They used to put their own clothes back on to go back to the PWC (after I had washed and ironed them) but wear the clothes we bought that were left in their rooms for when we had them.

I know exactly what you mean, and with many things in this situation it's a difficult decision when responding? Do you take the moral ground and throw away the rags they come to you in and send them back in new, proper-fitting clothes only for them to come back next time in more rags, or do you send them out twice in one week in the same rags as they came to you in? If you take the high ground, you're buying them new clothes all the time AND throwing money at her through the CSA.

And people just respond with harsh comments about how simple it is and 'just give her the money', or 'don't buy anything else' or 'put them in 1 uniform for 3 days'. It's rarely as simple as that.

13Kent

Oh yes, been there done that!!

solidpro

a court order for what? custody? the judge could easily say he must stay with her as she lives closer to his school, an me just be a weekend dad. meaning i see him even less. Court is what I am trying to avoid.

The one comment I'll make is don't be afraid of it. If you can budget some money for advice, then do that. I can recommend a decent family solicitor that got me more than any other dad I know. If I couldn't have afforded it, I would have gone it alone. I don't know if every experience in court is the same but the magistrates I had were clearly experienced and could easily tell what kind of person my ex was - or maybe she was just rubbish at concealing how vindictiveness was at the core of all her issues with the childcare arrangements...

I was afraid of losing everything but ultimately they were on my side.

It's just a shame the CMS/CSA don't care about anything a court in the land has said.

Guest101

Boot28 wrote: »

- What she has is literally not relevant in the slightest. Whether she had hundreds or millions. You have a child, you pay what you can. (the government only sets out the minimum)

That is such a poor comment. - Is it? If income was irrelevant, why is the amount of CSA I pay based on it. - The PWC's income is irrelevant. The NRP's isn't. As everyone else says, CSA is biased and unfair against the paying parent. - Not everyone says this. It's neither biased nor unfair, it's just a system designed to ensure children have enough financial support to survive. My child gets a hell of a lot more money than what he needs. Or rather my ex does. I would love to treat him to a random fun weekend away. - then do so. That's not what maintenance is for. But i cant, because of the amount I'm paying, money she doesn't need or even use on him. - How much do you pay? Now double it. Does that cover the cost of half of everything whilst he's in her care?

And before you start quoting with more silly comments, I know it isn't the CSA's fault that she doesn't use all the money on him, but it is their fault that i pay so much more than what is required. - How is it their fault?

'I pay full wack, as well as £160 every 4 week, although sometimes i have our son more than her in that time. - So pay the correct amount and nothing more. Your child can benefit more on you spending it directly on him.'

- EXACTLY my child would benefit more me spending the money on him myself. The whole point we are making. - So why are you paying an extra £160?

Its easy to say ' you shouldnt buy clothes then as this is what maintenance is for' - I didn't say clothes, I said uniforms, child care, etc.

2000 on uniforms, i provide childcare anyway, what else can she spend all that on that i dont provide when he is with me.....? - What childcare do you provide? You pay £2000 a year? £38 a week? You think it costs less than £80 a week to look after your child? Or do you think that in 6 months, the financial impact of having a child is less than £4000?

as a parent, when your son needs or wants something, you cant tell them no, and also risk being threatened that you wont see your son as much if you disagree. - then get a court order. And keep the clothes at your place.

-a court order for what? custody? the judge could easily say he must stay with her as she lives closer to his school, an me just be a weekend dad. meaning i see him even less. Court is what I am trying to avoid. - Well then deal with it. Courts do not make dad's - "weekend parents." You would likely get 5/6 days a fortnight. And save £160 to spend on your son, on those days.

Time to grow up a bit and stop worrying about 'fair'

Love this one... the whole thread is talking about what is right/fair. - Life isn't fair. I'd have thought you knew that.
You seem to be the type of person who likes to disagree for the sake of disagreeing, as evident saying the 2000 i pay should be spent on uniforms etc, then later on saying they only need 1 uniform for 3 days (which is just plain wrong). - I'm not bothered what you think of me, I don't know you, and even if I did, I still wouldn't be bothered. 1 uniform is enough for 3 days, teach your child to look after his belongings. The £2000, the £38 a week, should be spent on any child related costs that the PWC has. I'm pretty sure that it's more than £76 a week to have a child, or even half that time.

If i said the sky was blue, im sure that there would be a quote and a little red comment suggesting otherwise. - I'm not entering into what colour the sky is, or why we see it as blue.

Sorry if i have somehow misjudged you, and i am truly pleased for you that your happy with your agreement with your kids mother, but judging on your comments to solidpro, you are of no help to us, and daft comments are just a waste of everyones time.

What kind of help would you like? If you want someone to vent to, by all means go for it. But if you want some kind of 'get-out' for paying Child Maintenance, it's not going to happen.

Guest101

13Kent wrote: »

I wish I could get away with one uniform for 3 days with my children!! Jumpers get left in school, or come home with dinner down them, trousers end up with grass stains on the knees, and shirts get all sorts of marks on them.

Sometimes it's not practical just to wash one or two items - if you hand wash them they won't dry, and you can't just put one jumper in the washing machine. Not everyone has the luxury of a drier!

Our PWC used to send the children in the grubbiest oldest clothes that often didn't fit or were inappropriate for the season. We used to buy them a full sets of clothes, shoes, nightwear and coats so that they had decent clothes to wear when they were with us. But of course that was wrong as the children complained bitterly that they weren't the "designer label" clothes that they had at Mum's. (funny enough they were never wearing those on the days we collected them!).

They used to put their own clothes back on to go back to the PWC (after I had washed and ironed them) but wear the clothes we bought that were left in their rooms for when we had them.

I don't have a dryer either, there's a full load every day with children and adults and bedding and towels. I don't believe for a second that (on days or there after when you have the children) your washing basket is empty.