Different side to the story..

scotlass99

Thanks for all your advice and opinions, it made interesting reading. I understand what macaroni says about providing for children over other outgoings. But realistically (i.e.in the real world) it doesn't work like that. Me and him wanted to get on in life, and, I should add, we wanted to include his daughter, it was his ex that didn't want that. At what point does it become ridiculous? Him providing for his daughter but living on the streets?!

Anyway it looks to be sorted now. What everyone has to keep in mind is being in the other persons shoes - it's hard to empathaise with a situation if you haven't lived it..

Thanks

catenorfolk

I know this thread was a while ago, but if the NRP was paying monies directly into his daughters account, then that isnt paying towards childs upkeep is it - this is like giving child pocket money, when she really doesnt need that much - why didnt he stop this and pay his ex partner, as she is the one that pays the bills and upkeep of said child - surely that is simple. I mean who buys the food, clothes, pays for heating water electric etc!!!!!! cant see a problem there. Paying into childs account is a bit of a no brainer really as it looks like NRP is just trying to get back at parent with care!! bit like your employer paying someone else for work that you do - how would nrp feel!!!

TotallyBroke

catenorfolk wrote: »

I know this thread was a while ago, but if the NRP was paying monies directly into his daughters account, then that isnt paying towards childs upkeep is it - this is like giving child pocket money, when she really doesnt need that much - why didnt he stop this and pay his ex partner, as she is the one that pays the bills and upkeep of said child - surely that is simple. I mean who buys the food, clothes, pays for heating water electric etc!!!!!! cant see a problem there. Paying into childs account is a bit of a no brainer really as it looks like NRP is just trying to get back at parent with care!! bit like your employer paying someone else for work that you do - how would nrp feel!!!

I'm getting my ExOh to pay the maintenance into our ds account (although he is only 2). I think this is the best way. Ex can then prove he has been paying maintenance for ds because it goes from his own account to ds's account. The standing order will also be called "Maintenance". I will have ds's account added to my online banking so that I can transfer the money into my account and can then spend it on ds.
I also have done it this way because ExOh left me with a lot of debt and I want him to pay it back. It is a way to distinguish between maintenance for son and payment towards debts. Otherwise he could claim that all the money he gave me was for ds. This way it can be argued that if it was maintenance why is it not in ds's account. He will be paying me seperately for the debts.

Donedoingdebt

I'm not so sure that the CSA would happily accept this arrangement as proof that your ex has been paying child maintenance.
They may argue that he has been giving your Son cash gifts. Even if you both inform the CSA of your arrangement, they can be very stubborn when it comes to clawing money back into theirs or the Government's coffers.

kelloggs36

Have you checked to see if the assessment was changed whilst he was on SSP? That would mean no arrears building up and therefore a reduction in weekly payments.

pd001

djdido2 wrote: »

Why does he rarely see his daughter????????

Eh?

Why do you want to know?

pd001

scotlass99 wrote: »

Because when he texts or phones her she doesn't answer or reply so he sees her when she gets back in touch.

Personally I would not have answered the question that you were asked. Please do not answer questions like that again as you may give an answer that someone doesn't like and all hell will break loose.

It has no bearing on the facts of your case at all

catenorfolk

What I am still trying to understand is why doesnt your partner just pay his ex the money either directly or through the CSA and not through childs account. It seems very strange to do it this way, because the money is to help the parent maintain that child. So what is the point in putting it into childs account. I am sorry for sounding a bit dim, but still not really clear about this. I dont really see what purpose this has, apart from confusing the issue really.