Is this right?!

solidpro

£10 for care for a child?! - didn't realise I was speaking with someone of a significantly diminished IQ.

Think the poster meant per child per night. If it's 260 nights then £2600 per child per year isn't to be sniffed at. Unless you're dining out, then why should £10 not cover a meal, a bath, electricity, heating and a few short journeys? I try to manage a lot of evenings with 2 children for that kind of money.

Plus the £86+ in basic child allowance for first child from the government that the NRP will never see, which is another £1000 per year.

How is it their fault?

If their system is wrong and they ARE the system, then yes.

Well then deal with it. Courts do not make dad's - "weekend parents."

Unfortunately they do. Regardless of any progress in separating families, the common outcome of a breakup is the children remaining with the mother. Courts almost always insist on keeping the status quo, unless there are serious concerns. Which means parents who have not figured out what is best for the children (50/50, where possible) on day one of separation are screwed. I was told by everyone - friends, solicitors and even legal advisors that I must not give ANYTHING away because a judge will never award me more time than I already have.

It's like expecting on the day a family implodes, for everyone to be level headed and act with disconnected sensibilities, and then enforcing those decisions for the entire remaining childhood of those children.

BTW, I'm not saying there is any kind of easy fix for that, but you saying courts don't make weekend parents is wrong. They certainly enforce unreasonable parents keeping the other parent away for anything more by taking the safe stance of 'lets keep status quo 'for the children''

It's £38 a week. Life's too short. Grow up and concentrate on your son.

Bit harder to do when you have £1976 per year less to do it.

Boot28

Guest101 wrote: »

£10 for care for a child?! - didn't realise I was speaking with someone of a significantly diminished IQ.

Haha, it was an example, i assume you know what e.g. means? what do you work the cost per night out to be? though you shouldn't include the cost of the washing machine every night to wash their only uniform....

Boot28

Correct, as it should be. YOU are not the PWC, you are the NRP. - But this is biased, the whole point i was making.

Correct. which means your actual liability is £4000, divided by 50% (+£7). You receive a discount if you will of £2000 - Again your wrong. My 'Liability' is 2000 as stated by the CSA calc. There is no discount on this or else i would be paying less.

no you wouldn't. You would still not be the PWC. Being the PWC is not based purely on the time you have a child. Yes I would. 50/50 means no maintenance calculation is done by the CSA. I am unsure about the PWC and I assume your right about that, however if that is infact the case, is that not biased or unfair?

- wow ....I know. There could be 2 children with the same mother and separate fathers. One could pay twice the amount of the other although they live in the same house, so the CSA says it costs twice as much for one child than the other. Pretty stupid to suggest the CSA is not biased or unfair isn't it.

No the government say that. petition your MP to change it.No, the CSA say that via their online calculator. By your reckoning, ignore the CSA and go above them so its the governments fault, well i voted for the government so does that mean its infact my fault? another stupid comment just to try and argue or prove somebody wrong.

- But you cant exclude bills, etc. That is part of providing housing for your child! I do provide housing for my child. I would have those same bills if I had a child or not. As well as providing HER housing for our child. Which in my opinion should be down to her on the same amount of days she has him as me. The point I'm making is that it in my OPINION the maintenance should be worked out in the difference between days.

You said weekend dad. I'm saying courts don't do that anymore. Otherwise put up and shut up. You was suggesting I go to court, and said i would get around 5/6 days a fortnight...thus making me loose even more days with my child...... and you say I'm the one with a 'diminished IQ'.....

It's £38 a week. Life's too short. Grow up and concentrate on your son. Again, its been lovely talking to you, but the point of this forum/thread for to get advice from people. All I have had from you is suggestions that mean I would see my son less, that i should only buy one uniform and stop buying him clothes, telling me to 'grow up' and to 'Put up and shut up'. Thanks for your 'input' but you can go and highlight somebody else's thread with useless and pathetic arguments now please.

swingaloo

Boot28 wrote: »

Correct, as it should be. YOU are not the PWC, you are the NRP. - But this is biased, the whole point i was making.

Correct. which means your actual liability is £4000, divided by 50% (+£7). You receive a discount if you will of £2000 - Again your wrong. My 'Liability' is 2000 as stated by the CSA calc. There is no discount on this or else i would be paying less.

no you wouldn't. You would still not be the PWC. Being the PWC is not based purely on the time you have a child. Yes I would. 50/50 means no maintenance calculation is done by the CSA. I am unsure about the PWC and I assume your right about that, however if that is infact the case, is that not biased or unfair?

- wow ....I know. There could be 2 children with the same mother and separate fathers. One could pay twice the amount of the other although they live in the same house, so the CSA says it costs twice as much for one child than the other. Pretty stupid to suggest the CSA is not biased or unfair isn't it.

No the government say that. petition your MP to change it.No, the CSA say that via their online calculator. By your reckoning, ignore the CSA and go above them so its the governments fault, well i voted for the government so does that mean its infact my fault? another stupid comment just to try and argue or prove somebody wrong.

- But you cant exclude bills, etc. That is part of providing housing for your child! I do provide housing for my child. I would have those same bills if I had a child or not. As well as providing HER housing for our child. Which in my opinion should be down to her on the same amount of days she has him as me. The point I'm making is that it in my OPINION the maintenance should be worked out in the difference between days.

You said weekend dad. I'm saying courts don't do that anymore. Otherwise put up and shut up. You was suggesting I go to court, and said i would get around 5/6 days a fortnight...thus making me loose even more days with my child...... and you say I'm the one with a 'diminished IQ'.....

It's £38 a week. Life's too short. Grow up and concentrate on your son. Again, its been lovely talking to you, but the point of this forum/thread for to get advice from people. All I have had from you is suggestions that mean I would see my son less, that i should only buy one uniform and stop buying him clothes, telling me to 'grow up' and to 'Put up and shut up'. Thanks for your 'input' but you can go and highlight somebody else's thread with useless and pathetic arguments now please.

Give up Boots- you can never win. Its the power of highlighted text! If you said Black was Black you would still have a contradicting reply. (In red!)

Guest101

solidpro wrote: »

Think the poster meant per child per night. - I understand what he meant. And I'm shocked that is now being backed up. Rent / mortgage for a day would be more than £10! Then bills, food, entertainment, travel... If it's 260 nights then £2600 per child per year -** is not enough. isn't to be sniffed at. Unless you're dining out, then why should £10 not cover a meal, a bath, electricity, heating and a few short journeys? - because you're ignoring the housing cost! I try to manage a lot of evenings with 2 children for that kind of money. - I'd love to see you and two children travel and eat on less than £10. AND incorporate housing and utilities.

Plus the £86+ in basic child allowance for first child from the government that the NRP will never see, which is another £1000 per year. - Ye I know, I'm paying for your child!



If their system is wrong and they ARE the system, then yes. - It's not wrong. You THINK it's wrong.

Unfortunately they do. Regardless of any progress in separating families, the common outcome of a breakup is the children remaining with the mother. Courts almost always insist on keeping the status quo,- Children stay with the primary care giver, which is typically the mother. If you had given up your job and cared for them whilst your wife/partner worked. Youd be the PWC. unless there are serious concerns. Which means parents who have not figured out what is best for the children (50/50, where possible) on day one of separation are screwed. I was told by everyone - friends, solicitors and even legal advisors that I must not give ANYTHING away because a judge will never award me more time than I already have. - Exactly and you still complain.

It's like expecting on the day a family implodes, for everyone to be level headed and act with disconnected sensibilities, and then enforcing those decisions for the entire remaining childhood of those children. - Not at all. There's weeks and weeks for that to happen. You chose her and she chose you, and now you cant be civil to eachother. So the govt steps in.

BTW, I'm not saying there is any kind of easy fix for that, but you saying courts don't make weekend parents is wrong. They certainly enforce unreasonable parents keeping the other parent away for anything more by taking the safe stance of 'lets keep status quo 'for the children'' - That may happen, but that in itself is not the directive. Unfortunately many people cant play the game.

Bit harder to do when you have £1976 per year less to do it.

Like I said, £38 a week, that's not a fortune. Im sure you'd like to pay nothing, but that just highlights the type of person you are

Guest101

Boot28 wrote: »

Haha, it was an example, i assume you know what e.g. means? what do you work the cost per night out to be? though you shouldn't include the cost of the washing machine every night to wash their only uniform....

A common number is: it costs £150,000 to raise a child to 18. That's approximately £23 a day.

Guest101

Boot28 wrote: »

Correct, as it should be. YOU are not the PWC, you are the NRP. - But this is biased, the whole point i was making. - In what way is it biased? If you had been the childrens primary carer you would be the PWC, but you weren't, so you aren't.

Correct. which means your actual liability is £4000, divided by 50% (+£7). You receive a discount if you will of £2000 - Again your wrong. My 'Liability' is 2000 as stated by the CSA calc. There is no discount on this or else i would be paying less. - You are paying less because the liability is calculated and then reduced by the number of day you have the children.

no you wouldn't. You would still not be the PWC. Being the PWC is not based purely on the time you have a child. Yes I would. 50/50 means no maintenance calculation is done by the CSA. I am unsure about the PWC and I assume your right about that, however if that is infact the case, is that not biased or unfair? - No it's not. however if you have a workable solution, petition your MP.

- wow ....I know. There could be 2 children with the same mother and separate fathers. One could pay twice the amount of the other although they live in the same house, so the CSA says it costs twice as much for one child than the other. Pretty stupid to suggest the CSA is not biased or unfair isn't it. - That's not why I said wow.

No the government say that. petition your MP to change it.No, the CSA say that via their online calculator. By your reckoning, ignore the CSA and go above them so its the governments fault, well i voted for the government so does that mean its infact my fault? another stupid comment just to try and argue or prove somebody wrong. - The government set the rate and the law. The CSA/CMS just enforce it. It's like blaming the police for getting a speeding fine.

- But you cant exclude bills, etc. That is part of providing housing for your child! I do provide housing for my child. I would have those same bills if I had a child or not. As well as providing HER housing for our child. Which in my opinion should be down to her on the same amount of days she has him as me. The point I'm making is that it in my OPINION the maintenance should be worked out in the difference between days. - Sure, that's reasonable. So go to your MP and tell them.

You said weekend dad. I'm saying courts don't do that anymore. Otherwise put up and shut up. You was suggesting I go to court, and said i would get around 5/6 days a fortnight...thus making me loose even more days with my child...... and you say I'm the one with a 'diminished IQ'..... - But you would gain £160 so the quality of time together would be higher...

It's £38 a week. Life's too short. Grow up and concentrate on your son. Again, its been lovely talking to you, but the point of this forum/thread for to get advice from people. All I have had from you is suggestions that mean I would see my son less, that i should only buy one uniform and stop buying him clothes, telling me to 'grow up' and to 'Put up and shut up'. Thanks for your 'input' but you can go and highlight somebody else's thread with useless and pathetic arguments now please.

I'm saying you're going to have a negative memory of these precious times because you're winding yourself up over what is really a small amount of money.