Child maintenance and voluntary redundancy payment

browny40

Hi all,

I am new to this forum and wanted to ask whether anyone knows the rules on how much you have to pay your ex if you take voluntary redundancy and get a package which includes a lump sum and pay in leiu of notice. The maintenance that is currently paid is based on a private arrangement and was not done via the CSA. Also the amount paid to the ex-wife is more than given by the CSA calculator. Any advice gratefully received.

Loopy_Girl

If it is a private arrangement then it would really be whatever your conscience thoought was appropriate to be perfectly honest.

If you stop paying maintenance because you were out of work then your ex-wife would have every right to go to the CSA and try and get payments. Also if you think the amount you are paying is too much, as per the calculator, then you could perhaps suggest lowering your payments.

All depends on what kind of relationship you have with your ex whether it is amicable and if you can come to some kind of agreement.

My advice would be to try and NOT get the CSA involved and stick to a private arrangement but of you can't/won't pay the amount she is expecting then she may well involve them.
Any claim for maintenance would be from the date she contacted them and your redundancy money wouldn't get taken into account as it is not counted as income (as I rather spookily read on another thread from eons ago today)

Hope this helps

lis69

Your message has prompted me to join this site because I feel so strongly about this issue, although from the opposite side!

I have 2 children where my x and I had a private agreement however this was always what he dictated, with no evidence of his income, this amount only ever increased once over a 7 year period. Now he has found himself to be made redundant and has informed me that any redundancy pay he gets will be going to pay for his mortgage payments before his insurance kicks in to cover it! All I can say is well I'm so glad he will be able to cover his bills, because now without any contribution from him, our situation is not so certain! My gripe with all this maintenance stuff is a simple question; How is it fair for 1 part of the parenting unit to not only have to provide 90% of the day to day care but also 85,80 or 75% of the living costs for the children aswell. Yet the NRP pays 15, 20 or 25% of their net income, with allowance for pension, with only occasional child contact?

My life has been adapted and had sacrifices made (which I would have done, whether together or apart) but his life has continued to grow, giving him capital, nice sports car, owes his own home and has holidays every year (without the kids) and a pension, I have none of this apart from a cheap family car.

DUTR

lis69 wrote: »

Your message has prompted me to join this site because I feel so strongly about this issue, although from the opposite side!

I have 2 children where my x and I had a private agreement however this was always what he dictated, with no evidence of his income, this amount only ever increased once over a 7 year period. Now he has found himself to be made redundant and has informed me that any redundancy pay he gets will be going to pay for his mortgage payments before his insurance kicks in to cover it! All I can say is well I'm so glad he will be able to cover his bills, because now without any contribution from him, our situation is not so certain! My gripe with all this maintenance stuff is a simple question; How is it fair for 1 part of the parenting unit to not only have to provide 90% of the day to day care but also 85,80 or 75% of the living costs for the children aswell. Yet the NRP pays 15, 20 or 25% of their net income, with allowance for pension, with only occasional child contact?

My life has been adapted and had sacrifices made (which I would have done, whether together or apart) but his life has continued to grow, giving him capital, nice sports car, owes his own home and has holidays every year (without the kids) and a pension, I have none of this apart from a cheap family car.

You're doing something wrong!
Then again 15% net could equate to 75% of the living costs.
But sadly it does seem like you are doing something wrong as you should be living like a Princess once you have the state on your side, hold tight, there should be people along to assist get the best out of the system :beer:

Caz3121

agree something not quite right....
my OHs ex's income is split the following
43% child tax credits and child benefit (only payable as there are children) - does not include the housing benefit they also get on top
27% from child maintenance
30% from own income

so 70% comes into the household because of the children

DUTR

Caz3121 wrote: »

agree something not quite right....
my OHs ex's income is split the following
43% child tax credits and child benefit (only payable as there are children) - does not include the housing benefit they also get on top
27% from child maintenance
40% from own income

so 60% comes into the household because of the children

The sums above come to 110%

Caz3121

thanks DUTR I have fixed the error - I guess the 2 ways of looking at it
a) both parents contribute roughly the same into the household
b) the father is paying in 27% so the mother must be paying the 73%

both adults also have their own housing costs (both with enough space for the children but only the pwc gets any assistance)

LizzieS_2

Caz3121 wrote: »

agree something not quite right....
my OHs ex's income is split the following
43% child tax credits and child benefit (only payable as there are children) - does not include the housing benefit they also get on top
27% from child maintenance
30% from own income

so 60% comes into the household because of the children

Still wrong 43 + 27 = 70

lis69

Yes benifits help, well up until the kids leave full time education, then the PWC has to pick up thier life and start from scratch (generally)! Do you not think benifits only bring in money enough to scratch at the bills, curtainly not to give a quality of life that. Yet the NRP lives life to the full with no restrictions. And I'm sorry to disagree, and may well be totally wrong but if my ex can have all he's managed to get and do with the equal amount of money as me then you are right I must be doing something majorly wrong! He has about £150 p/wk more than us with no responsiblilty of the kids short of 2 days out of 14! Why should he not have to give our kids some of the money from his redundancy to help keep them in thier home?

DUTR

lis69 wrote: »

Yes benifits help, well up until the kids leave full time education, then the PWC has to pick up thier life and start from scratch (generally)! Do you not think benifits only bring in money enough to scratch at the bills, curtainly not to give a quality of life that. Yet the NRP lives life to the full with no restrictions. And I'm sorry to disagree, and may well be totally wrong but if my ex can have all he's managed to get and do with the equal amount of money as me then you are right I must be doing something majorly wrong! He has about £150 p/wk more than us with no responsiblilty of the kids short of 2 days out of 14! Why should he not have to give our kids some of the money from his redundancy to help keep them in thier home?

Glad you hit the nail on the head about starting from scratch later on, the old saying they who laugh last laugh longest. I know my 'ex' pro rata is getting more than I and many others who are in 'decent' jobs, yet only works 16hrs/week, rent paid for , council tax, csa money , CTC etc etc. I have to find my own council tax, mortgage, travel to and from work, no help in the form of benefits.
Why can't the children live with him?

LizzieS_2

DUTR wrote: »

Glad you hit the nail on the head about starting from scratch later on, the old saying they who laugh last laugh longest. I know my 'ex' pro rata is getting more than I and many others who are in 'decent' jobs, yet only works 16hrs/week, rent paid for , council tax, csa money , CTC etc etc. I have to find my own council tax, mortgage, travel to and from work, no help in the form of benefits.
Why can't the children live with him?

Depends how she spends the income now as to if it will affect her later.

On 16 hours, she would still probably get help with council tax/rent.

What is often missed is the care side (before anyone bites, I agree there are some nrp's who would happily share the responsibility of caring to enable each party to work for less income), pwc are frequently the ones who have to provide the care as first priority.

To give you an example, when married we did share the care and juggled work to suit, once separated I was told in no uncertain terms the care no longer suited him and I had to employ some-one to do that if I wanted to work. I had no idea of benefits and did what I thought was best - childminder employed. Even though mine were of school age the childcare I had to pay for ate into all these so called benefits - for a pwc on minimum wage the cost would be even greater.