CSA payment

GwylimT

DUTR wrote: »

I don't understand your point ? Whoever the OP's partner has a further child with doesn't change the fact you are stating, however there is only one pot of funds which has to be shared between all in the family, as it happns the 1st family get the better share.

Really?

One family gets 15%, the other 85%. How is 15% a better share?

Or if you divide it between children
Family 1 15%
Family 2
Child 1 28%
Child 2 28%
Child 3 28%

FBaby

It really depends on individual circumstances. Not sure how old the eldest is, but £250 is probably just about if not under half of what the child costs. It is only fair that their father pays half.

OP and him already have two children, so having a third is a luxury. Why would it be fair that the eldest either have to face cutting down on something they were used to (maybe an activity, driving lessons etc...), or that the mother has to make up the difference and pay more than 50% so that the kid is not affected.

If he was paying £500, I would say fair enough, but at £250, I think that a drop of £8 is quite reasonable.

DUTR

GwylimT wrote: »

Really?

One family gets 15%, the other 85%. How is 15% a better share?

Or if you divide it between children
Family 1 15%
Family 2
Child 1 28%
Child 2 28%
Child 3 28%

Not quite..... Family 1 gets 15% Family 2 get 8% per child.

oystercatcher

DUTR wrote: »

I don't understand your point ? Whoever the OP's partner has a further child with doesn't change the fact you are stating, however there is only one pot of funds which has to be shared between all in the family, as it happns the 1st family get the better share.

Maybe they shouldn't be having children they can't afford then .

DUTR

oystercatcher wrote: »

Maybe they shouldn't be having children they can't afford then .

Who are they? The NRP or the PWC who is depending on someone else contributing?

The NRP wasn't isn't complaining and neither is the PWC in the example of the original post.

JIL

oystercatcher wrote: »

Maybe they shouldn't be having children they can't afford then .

Not everything is black and white.

Red-Squirrel_2

DUTR wrote: »

Who are they? The NRP or the PWC who is depending on someone else contributing?

The NRP wasn't isn't complaining and neither is the PWC in the example of the original post.

Er, the someone else is the child's other parent though! Hardly an unreasonable expectation!

DUTR

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Er, the someone else is the child's other parent though! Hardly an unreasonable expectation!

No! The other parent's partner just asked a question, other than the maths folk just started the usual bickering about someone happy elsewhere with another.

Pixie5740

JIL wrote: »

Not everything is black and white.

Contraception, sterilisation and terminations are all available on the NHS. Family planning has never been easier.

peachyprice

Sambella wrote: »

Soon we will be in the year 2018. This will be the 20th year that the CMS rates for calculating payments has been left unchanged. No inflationary rises for NRP’s.

Do you know how percentages work?