to be bloody pissed off that the CSA...(209 Posts)
take child tax credits from one set of children living with the Non resident parent, to give to their other child regardless of the resident parents income.
Child Tax Credits are given to lift children out of poverty and then the CSA take them, shoving them back into poverty - even if the child they are giving this money to lives in a wealthy household.
But it counts as income, therefore the non-resident child is entitled to their part of it.
Otherwise, someone on a very low wage, getting high rate tax credits, wouldn't be giving their child what they're owed.
The child is entitled to it, regardless of their wealthy household.
But these child tax credits are given to literally lift the children just out from under the line of poverty - then the CSA takes it.
Can you explain this? I don't understand. Do the CSA take tax credits into account as income?
It's not that child's fault your children are in poverty. They are a child. The non resident parent was responsible for bringing them in to the world - they have to be responsible for them once they're in it.
Also, it seems illogical, if the NRP had not had another child they were now living with, the non-resident child would not be entitled to that childs tax credits as they would not exist. So the more children NRP has, the more money the RP receives for their child.
Sorry for the hijack, but I have a question.
Do the CSA take into account the earnings of the Non Resident parents partner? Or is soley on the NRP's income?
Yes they take a percentage of CHILD tax credits to give to another child.
Of course that's how it works. More money for parent = more money for that child. It's not illogical at all.
It is solely on the NRP's income, but they count the CTC as their income.
A non resident parent needs to provide for his or her children, no matter how much money the other parent has or who they have chosen to live with.
If someone can't provide for their children without it having a serious negative effects on other children, then they shouldn't be living with, or creating, other children.
It's not more money for the PARENT. it's money to lift the CHILD out of poverty.
Tax credits are awarded to the parent, not the child.
Therefore it counts as part if their income.
Therefore the non resident child is entitled to their share of it.
The tax credits are awarded to the parent for the cost of their child, to lift the child out from poverty so that the parent may buy them shoes, food, nappies, etc etc.
Are you talking about the NRP having a child or their own, or living with the children of their new partner and becoming a step parent?
The NRP INCOME should be taken into account. But since when is CTC awarded for the birth of a child the NRP's income? It's the bare minimum the government have decided the child needs in nappies, food, clothing. How is this anything to do with any other children.
The tax credits are awarded to the parent for the cost of their child
No, that's what Child Benefit is for. Child Benefit is not included as income for CSA purposes.
Tax credits are a means tested benefit available to non-parents (albeit rarely awarded) as well as families on low incomes. It is not just 'money for the child'; it is money for the family and members of the family included non-resident children.
And when they had this child of their own, did they pay a reasonable amount towards to the costs of the children they already had previously?
Laly, nrp partner income not taken into account anymore, but half of the joint claim to tax credits is.
I am talking about CHILD TAX CREDITS not working tax credits. child tax credits are NEVER AWARDED TO NON PARENTS. Child TAX CREDITS ARE GIVEN FOR EACH CHILD.
The NRP was already paying maintenance for his existing child from his WAGE and WORKING TAX CREDITS. That is fine! It's them taking money awarded to be spent on a child in poverty that is awful. Money that wouldn't even be there if that child had not been born.
Does this NRP not receive Working tax credits then, or do they earn enough that they don't qualify?
I don't think TC should be taken into account.
Get off your ranty soapbox. You're being unreasonable, and petty. You have children with someone who has other children. They have responsibilities.
Tax credits are just a method that the Governments uses to give money to certain client groups for political favour so of course they are income and so they are taken into account.
Yes they receive working tax credits. I agree with working tax credits being taking into account. But not CTC.
You are being very confusing, and a bit too shouty.
Sorry, but YABU.
Yes they have responsibilities and they were already paying maintenance via their wage and working tax credits. Child tax credits is extra awarded for the cost of a child. I fail to understand how this is counted as the parents income.
I think this part of the calculation will stop when the new system is in place and about time too so YANBU.
CTC shouldnt be touched but WTC should be eligible. I dont know many people making CSA payments that have ever been asked what they receive in TC, the calculation has just been based on the earnings of NRP
laly NRP's partners/wives/husbands income is not taken into account.
OP, Is it a case of swings and roundabouts though?
The NRP who has created a 2nd family where CTC received is used as income for CSA calculations for children from first family also benefits from paying reduced maintenance for his children from first family because he has gone on to have more children.
So while NRP loses out in one way, they benefit in another.
Exp has a young child as well as our ds1.
No way would i want his new child to go short by taking a portion of their ctc.
Why not ask the CSA then. Don't shout though, you won't get far.
I Was going to assume you had just had new baby with nrp and found that CSA are taking ctc into account as well as wtc but in op you mention a "set" of children.
Out of interest How many children are we talking?
When DH was assessed way back in the 90's, child benefit was taken in to account for the NRP's income. The CSA's formula's have always been illogical.
Ohhhhhh such a dramatic way of looking at it.
They only consider tax credits if the nrp is part of a joint claim and they do not consider the entire award only a portion of it.
They do not take into account any of the nrp's partners income that's why its only a portion of the tax credits.
And the nrp also gets a deduction based on how many children they have resident with them.
Stop being so bloody obtuse, it would be much easier all round to just spell out the situation in clearer terms.
YABVU, you have chosen between you to have more children. Why should the first miss out. If you were adequately supporting the child there would have been no need to involve the CSA.
If you dont want to share your tax credits, then work more hours and dont claim them. They are not paid to only those in poverty, you can claim CTC on a decent salary as the cap is far higher than WTC.
My children are the first actually! My DH's other child is a result of a fling he had during a time when we separated for a year. In our case our children would be living in poverty without CTC because DH was laid off and is now in a low paid job and I can not currently work due to an anxiety disorder.
And yes they did use contraception - she was on the pill.
No it is not a portion of CTC, the letter received today states they have used our entire award of CTC to be included as DH's income and will therefore be deducted to give to his other child. At a loss.
a fling,well serves him bloody right
having his cake and eating it
unbelivable,hes a tosser and your daft enough to back him,and then expect the poor child to suffer
bet he dosent see this child even and that suits you to fine
A lot of women state they are, he should have used something himself rather than rely on a short term partner. Isnt it something like a 0.3% failure rate yet "accidental" pregnancies i would imagine are far higher and down to mis-use etc.
The CSA take all income into account, how sad that you begrudge a subsequent child of support. Your husband should have thought twice before having more if you cant support them.
Hard to judge really without any figures provided. How much is he being asked to pay?
I fail to understand how this is counted as the parents income.
It's counted as the parents income, because it's the parent that claims it in order to be able to provide for their children. They don't give it to children, they give it to adults who ask for it because they can't provide for their kids on their own.
You have your DH to blame for the situation you are in, not the CSA. And knowing what a shower of shite the CSA are, I don't try to remove blame from them very often.
Haha!! I knew this would turn into a husband bashing session after my last comment. I had TWO FLINGS during our separation, he had one. How will the child suffer if they do not receive my CHILDREN's tax credits? They are already receiving 15% of his wage and working tax credits! And the CHILD tax credits would not even be here if my children didn't exist!
Broken, you have said yourself it is given to provide for the children. How is this anything to do with any other child.
How can you call him a tosser for having a fling during our separation? Beyond my comprehension, you don't even know him. Are you a feminist dandy?
But they do exist, as does the money.
If you had a child from your 'fling' and the fella had other kids would you be happy about him having some untouchable cash that YOUR child had to do without.
I doubt it
this has angered me,yes im angry with men that father children then run for the hills when money or contact is raised
yes im one thats been told by the csa that my dc's father until last month took home £500 a week but has jacked his job in as he refused to pay and as soon as they went for earning attachments so now pays £5 a week,havent seen that yet either
and silly me never bothered chasing for maintanance for 5 yrs,more fool me
I do agree that including the child tax credit portion is a bit off but your DH will be getting a reduction in his maintenance for all the resident children you have, so it probably evens out quite a bit. Personally I don't think there should be a reduction either <shrug>
Couldn't you have avoided this completely by having the child tax credits in your name?
This other child is his too. So this child needs to be lifted out of poverty from your husband' s end.
The child tax credits wouldn't be there if you and your DH didn't need to claim them either.
If he earned enough your DH would still have to pay the same amount to his other child. It makes no difference whether your DH earns his money or takes it off the state.
I don't think having a fling makes him a tosser. I think having sex without a condom when he already had children that he wasn't able to provide for without benefits makes him a tosser.
Untouchable cash given to him for his resident childrens nappies, milk, clothes, shoes, school uniform? Why on earth would i take that money from those children to give to my own child whom I can claim my own Child tax credits for. bonkers.
Dandy I'm sorry your dc's father is avoiding payment, but my DH is not. He is happy to give the child their share of his income. But he and I are not happy about child tax credits being taken.
118- not if they live together as a couple, has to be joint claim
Ah, I see were. I think I got confused with child benefit
118 they insist on DH being joint claimant, these are the rules as we are residing together.
no im not a feminist,far from it
and how does my comment make me one?????
does it make me a feminist because i think he should support his child,no it does not but im tired of people disregarding children when it suits,
does he see his child from the fling????
So if the CSA said "ok mrs fanjan, from now on you will be entitled to x amount a week, its reduced has has three kids already"
"Oh it's ok mr CSA I don't want the bit that's from child tax credits"
I agree with comments up thread. If you can't afford kids put a condom on at the very least! We're lucky to have tax credits in this country so chill out and stop acting so entitled.
Which by the way could be pennies or a fortune, we don't know!
Optimistic, I don't understand why they reduce the income taken into account from his wage based on his resident children, then take a portion of the child tax credits given for the resident children. It seems daft. Surely it makes more sense just to leave it as is. Don't reduce and don't take CTC.
It's not untouchable though is it?
Why on earth would i take that money from those children to give to my own child whom I can claim my own Child tax credits for
You would never be in a position to take money away from children to give to your own. No mother is. It doesn't happen like that.
it's utter bollocks isn't it.
So many inconsistencies. Child maintenance is not counted as income for tax credit / housing benefit purposes but tax credits are counted as income for child maintenance / housing benefit claims.
I don't receive any maintenance at the moment but when I do, I find it bizarre that I can keep that portion of the household income and ring fence it as its money intended for my son. I couldn't do it with my child tax credits though, even though they are paid for my son and my two youngest - how can some other set of children make a claim on money that is paid and intended for the benefit of another?
Isn't that because child maintenance can be sporadic? So they'd always be reassessing if that was counted.
Dandy she never wanted him involved with the child, she is now with someone whom she actually wants to officially adopt the child. My DH cannot afford to take her to court for visitation, we did start solicitor letters etc but legal aid has now stopped. He is very upset and looking into representing himself in court, the CAB are currently giving him advice on this.
There are several bits of income the csa do not take into account.
Tax credits are means testable for every single income related thing you do they always have been,why should the csa be any different
Surely it makes more sense just to leave it as is. Don't reduce and don't take CTC.
Not for the child that doesn't get to live with their Father or have much in the way of financial support it doesn't.
And lets face it, it won't be much support if its reliant on a low wage wage and working tax credits. Even adding a tiny amount of child tax credit money on to it, it doesn't really start to reflect what it actually costs to bring up a child, does it?
Actually he got laid off and went into his low-wage job after conceiving his other child. The two men I had flings with didn't wish to use condoms when I informed them I was taking oral contraception either. No man ever has in my experience actually. I guess they are all evil bastards.
Lots of them are, yes. And women let them get away with it, because they have child tax credits to fall back on.
ok op,im gonna bow out as im to wound up by my own circumstances to judge clearly your circumstances which is your thread and i respect that
to close to home for me im afraid
Then the pair of you are lucky it was only pregnancy and nothing else shared.
OP, if you truly begrudge sharing the tax credits (and like broken says given the low wage and ctc its likely to only be a few pounds) then work on either getting yourself back to work or get your OH to take on a second job. You sound very selfish and entitled. If your children and second family are in poverty then look at fixing that rather than deny a child a few pounds.
Anita -*how can some other set of children make a claim on money that is paid and intended for the benefit of another?*
Exactly. I do not understand it.
I don't envy your situation OP but she will probably have huge issues getting the adoption to go through if she is accepting maintenance and refusing contact from your OH.
On the RPs side, the NRP gets a reduction for having other children living with them, whether they are financially responsible for them or not (the criteria is having child benefit paid into that home).
The NRPs partners wages are not taken into account. So, the NRP can live off a partners wage, be on the dole, or stay at home. and even if they are living the high life with holidays, flash lifestyle, etc, they won't have to pay. It's nowhere near rosy on the other side.
Anita it's done that way as the money is unreliable. It wasn't that way before, and if your household, and child's wellbeing, relied on receiving that money, and it didn't arrive for whatever reason, you're fucked. You're short on your rent, can't pay bills. Or the alternative is to not apply for CSA, and have yet another NRP getting away with not paying.
they didn't use protection, she said she was on the pill, he chose to believe her instead of using a condom. During that exchange they chose together to share pregnancy and/or std's including HIV ect.
Pretty much he has to pay for it, if you choose to stay with him then you pay (financially) too. Could be worse, least he sees your kids and I'm assuming you didn't get an sti?
Happymummy, you sound deluded as many people who are not 'living in poverty are' when it comes to this. DH cannot take a second job he works 40 hours a week in split shifts. I AM working on getting myself back to work. Have you any knowledge of panic disorder. I am currently with my doctor trying to find a medication that works for me and am on the waiting list for cognitive behavioural therapy. I will reiterate that I do not begrudge the child a share of DH's income. But when I am in absolute panic and despair about where on earth I am to find the money for my daughter's school uniform which she needs in a few weeks among other things, yes I do begrudge money allocated for such things for my child being deducted.
And when we had our children, we COULD afford them. our current financial status has occurred since having them.
Are they taking more from the tax credits than the discount he gets for the resident children?
No Cao both DH and I went and got tested and we don't have any STI's. DH and I are paying financially through his wage and working tax credits, thats fine. But when you are in a situation where literally a few pounds does make a huge difference, I get upset about my children paying financially.
Socket I need to sit down and work this out.
Deluded im not the one practising unsafe sex or moaning about the cost of chidlren.
Your daughters CB is not part of the CSA payment so use that for the uniform.
I note you dont state the amount it actually is, i'd hesitate to guess thats its tiny and an embarrasing amount thats no where near half the cost of raising a child.
Ofcourse its not half the amount it costs to raise a child, but her mother wants us to have nothing to do with that child, we cannot have them here to take any part in raising her with us at all we would if we could. An embarrassing amount maybe to you, but to us it's a lot.
Go on then how much does he have to pay?
I would be frustrated too. The OP has gained a step child during a period of separation due to two people's carelessness. The mother of the child is denying access but seems quite happy to take the cash from OPs OHs wages and a cut of the OPs children's benefit. She would have had to ask for the CTC to be taken into account as its not automatically picked up on assessment. Children aren't pay per view I know but what's suddenly become so dreadful about the OH that he's not allowed to see the child but his money is quite acceptable?
Perhaps she doesn't want him to see the child since he has shown no interest until money was involved? That's very pay per view on the dads side of things.
That doesn't really fit with the adoption side of the story though does it? The other mother states she wants her new partner to adopt the child. To have a child adopted by a step parent you have to be able to prove that the natural parent has relinquished all ties. By paying maintenance the natural father is accepting financial responsibility for the child. She could cancel the CSA claim if she wanted to.
She saw him only as a fling and has never been interested in him as a father to her child as she did not intend to conceive with him, she has said she does not wish to share her child with someone she does not care for, and her child has a father in her current partner.
Okay I am going to have to eat my words everybody. I have somehow managed to just sit down and work it out where I have failed before and found it too confusing. I'm not sure whether i have used the right calculations and will have to double check it in the morning but it seems that she loses out by £1 a week more because of the deductions of his income due to him living with our children, than we do by losing a certain amount of CTC.
I am still a bit confused and need to look at it again:/
I'm happy to work it out for you
" The two men I had flings with didn't wish to use condoms when I informed them I was taking oral contraception either. No man ever has in my experience actually"
Why is sock returning pixie so interested in the amount OPs OH is paying?
Are you for real Anita?
Perhaps the mother has had such a poor relationship with the father of her baby, seeing as how he is back in a relationship she thought he'd left, that she hasn't wanted to hand her baby over to him and his other family. That doesn't mean her child won't have cost her money, some of which the father of her child owes her.
I can completely see what might have become so awful about the Dh that she would rather her baby had a chance of a father figure that loved both of them.
I thought child tax credits were for the children living with you.
I don't think CTC should be counted as its for the children living in the NRPs household. The other parent gets CTC and CB for the non resident child. It's wrong to take money paid for one child and give it to another. Fair enough a percentage of the NRPs wage and WTC but not CTC.
Okay in an ideal world the NRP wouldn't have other DCs if they can't support them and the existing child/ren but its wrong to take money intended for the 'new' child/ren and give it to the child/ren from the first relationship. It's not the 'new child/rens fault they were born so they shouldn't suffer.
Because it would be interesting to know if the amount the pwc gains from the tax credit inclusion has much relation with the discount he gets due to his resident children.
Csa assessments area subject that interest me. Is that ok with you?
I am for real I can assure you. Just because a relationship hasn't worked out doesn't give the mother the right to withhold access. it just doesn't work like that and rightly so. Not all women are saints and not all absent fathers are bastards
Broken, she was actually not ever interested in a relationship with him and from the offset did not want him involved. When he and I reconciled the child was a few months old and he had not seen the mother since she was a few months pregnant. She 'disappeared' until she filed a claim for maintenance through CSA.
Stephen, what is 'eeeeeew' the fact that I had sex with two different men without condoms. Or the fact that they themselves didn't request to use condoms even though I had told them I was on the pill?
He has a child with someone else. He has a moral and legal obligation to provide for tha child. I don't get your point tbh.
Anita if the nrp was really that bothered by it then he could very easily do something about it.
Glad you were checked fan, I also get that you and your kids shouldn't suffer for DP's reluctance to use birth control.
He is also a parent to your children, is there a reason you are stressing and dealing with the issues involving children you didn't make and not him?
As far as I know tax credits are only used if a parent is biologically responsible for all children. Glad you have looked at options, tax credits usually sort it out.
I really it works out for you op, but i also hope that you include extra child, not their fault & they have you, your dh and siblings they can enjoy if everyone can agree
Also have you ever thought you may not be getting the full story ? Who says she disappeared ?
this is one of the reasons i think there should be a national minimum (like they have national minimum wage) amount payable by NRPs regardless of income and treated like a proper debt if they don't pay it. then a percentage of any income you earn above a certain threshold. and NOT subject to reduction if they have more/other children. so for example if someone has a child they pay (for the sake of argument) £25 a week and they know that if they have 10 more children they will have to pay £25 for each of them per week.
Sock, I don't want to give you the exact figures. But you can work out the difference actually without my exact financial details.
The basic rate applies at £200 per week income.
Full child tax credit for two kids is about £115 a week.
So say an NRP was earning the above, that's £315 they would count as their income altogether.
If you go onto CSA CALCULATOR (google it) you can work out what the RP would receive with/without the NRP's other children causing a reduction on the maintenance and what the NRP is losing in CTC and compare the two.
the fact that you have unprotected sex with several different people is eww. did you all get tested before you had sex?
Because your dh is on a low income he qualifies for ctc for the children who live with him. Because he has children living with him he pays a reduced amount of maintenance. can you not see that your dh would benefit twice from your children if ctc were not taken into account.
The other parent doesn't necessarily get CTCs for their children. I don't. Either way, my ex owes a fair share of what it takes to bring up our child.
Child tax credits are an income supplement for someone that has to provide for children. It is intended to help them with general costs associated with having a child, the parent still has a responsibility to provide, or at least contribute to their child's school uniform. If they got the same amount of money in earned income as they do through claiming CTCs, they would still have to pay the same.
Sock have you read my previous comments?! DH is seeking advice on representing himself in court for access to his other child since legal aid stopped for family matters and along with it the services from his solicitor which he had sought to try and gain access to the child.
I hope you've all been tested! Condoms prevent more than just pregnancy you know
Squabbling over a £ or two isn't going to help DH get access to his dc.
Stephen - 2 people. in the space of a year. Who I knew within my circle of friends and had a pretty good idea of their recent sexual history.One of them had had a very recent STI check up, the other had not but had just got out of a long term relationship. Small town its all a bit incestuous. But yes i get your point, its irresponsible.
Fan when did your husband first contact his solicitor about this?
Yes jacks having worked it out I can see that now.
I think it's bloody disgraceful if you ask me, and gives this sense of hierarchy as to which children are more important. It's nothing but double fucking standards.
The PWC from the "first" family gets to keep every penny of the child tax credits that they get, but the "second" family gets a reduction in order to subsidise the first family. Where's the fairness in that? Those children shouldn't have to pay for their half brother/sister or step brother/sister's living costs at their other parent's house.
Before you start throwing the "but the NRP gets a reduction in the amou t they have to pay when other kids live with them" line at me, I don't agree with that either. They should scrap it. I mean, what's the point in the reduction in maintainable if they're going to bump it up with CTCs that belong to the other children? Is it like a game that the government like us all to play? Let's all go round in circles and whiles we're at it give this notion that second children are second class citizens.
I don't know, there's something that doesn't sit right with taking CHILD tax credits away from one child to give to another in order to give to another child that already gets their full amount. Take wages, take working tax credits, take bonuses, tips, redundancy, whatever... But CTC is for one set of children only, and that's the ones that are in the claim.
Next they'll be snatching child benefit. Or partner's wages. Then life really will be shit.
jacks when the child was born, he 'heard through the grapevine'...he contacted his solicitor within a month and was entitled to legal aid. She did not respond. He was intending on taking her to court. Legal aid has stopped.
you don't know their sexual history- you really don't- you only know what they're happy to tell you, but what you also don't know is the sexual history of all the people they slept with and if they're happy to have unprotected sex with you then you can bet your ass they were having UP sex with the others. it really is a massive risk to take just having UP sex with ONE person just once unless you have a completely up to date STI check for both of you and neither of you has slept with anyone since the text happened. condoms condoms condoms! they're FREE from GUM clinics, family planning (or whatever it's called now) clinics.
So many spelling mistakes in my above post I'm tired and on the ipad I do apologise.
and it wasn't just two men, it was also your DH who had been having UP sex with another woman who also has UP sex.
Stephen i totally agree with you regarding the national minimum.
but i'm glad you both have the all clear.
Since he had already retained the solicitors services legal aid would have continued. It only stopped for new cases not existing ones. There is no reason your dh couldn't have continued with the solicitor.
needaholiday I agree 100%, what is the point in making a deduction in maintenance due to resident children, then taking the tax credits of resident children to make up for it. It seems bonkers and winds both parties up no end when in actual fact it's only a £1 difference a week. It's a £1 a week that the RP loses out on due to NRP having other children they live with.
He stopped dealings with the solicitor when she was not responding. He then decided to take her to try again and hopefully take her to court only to be told that govt had stopped funding in family matters. He should never have stopped in first place.
Sorry all but I'm having to go to bed thank you for all your comments.
It is bonkers and I don't know why they do it at all.
The reason why they make so many screw ups is because they make it so damn difficult for themselves!
That's why people should just not tell the CSA about children living with the NRP. Saves a whole lot of messing about!
I understand your view about taking with one hand and giving with the other but how would you feel if you dh earned enough to not claim ctc but no allowance was made for your children in that instance. It's never going to be right which ever way they do it, someone will always be annoyed.
Op just from your posts on here I can see why the other mother does not want her child spending weekends with you and your OH, even if the reduction in maintance would be nice for you
Also, it seems illogical, if the NRP had not had another child they were now living with, the non-resident child would not be entitled to that childs tax credits as they would not exist. So the more children NRP has, the more money the RP receives for their child.
Crazy isn't it?
easy, the mother never wanted oh to be involved, made that decision before I was even on the scene again. What has my OH done?! They had a fling, she didn' want it to get serious, she didnt want someone involved in 'her' childs life whom she did not have any interest in. She met her current partner whilst about 5 months pregnant who she has always wanted to be the biological father. But he isnt. That's literally it.
jacks i agree with you. I stand corrected
needaholiday you are right. would save a whole lot of messing about. I was enraged I thought my kids were losing out on X amount from CTC but having actually got my head around it it's practically no difference due to the deductions from accountable wage because of them. (not making sense sorry, tired). Have googled and looked at several sites where a lot of parents are equally horrified and confused by the system.
From what you've said here, I agree with you.
So hypothetically; if my DP was paying maintenance through the CSA, and because we have 2 children together, a portion of their tax credits would go in to DSD's mum as well? Even though her mum most likely claims tax credits for DSD and her new baby and gets to keep every penny of it?
I'm a bit cut and dried about this but sometimes you have to stop getting advice on a matter and just go and do it.
You can consult as many different people as you fancy but nothing is going to change the fact that its still not doing anything.
He could spend the next 16 years getting advice and still not do anything about it.
I'm being torn asunder here by, on the one hand, my utter outrage that 'feminist' seems to be being used here as an insult, and on the other by my coming over all Daily Mail at the way people seem to go about conceiving children by randomers with such gay abandon.
I don't understand the financial thing btw - I trust you're not denying that your Dh should be funding his other child? If you weren't eligible for tax credits then your children would still be losing out financially by dint of having a half-sibling - the more children a parent has, the less cash there is to share between them.
Assuming he really is in a shit job with dreadful pay though I can see that rather than having slightly less spent on each at Christmas this could mean real hardship. Do you work? Are jobs particularly hard to come by round your way? Apols if you've answered that already.
i do agree OP- it's not an aspect of CSA i had considered as my exp has no other children so there is no complication wrt to what he does (when he does ) pay.
i think the whole system needs a huge overhaul. everything from benefits, wages, tax credits and child maintenance all needs scrunched up, fired in the bin and rewritten. cant see it happening any time soon (because i'm not yet PM ) but it is well overdue.
i agree sock
OP do you know your DH can self represent in court? there are a lot of resources available online to give him a basic idea of what he needs to do to get contact with his child.
i initially used a solicitor but it got to the point where i was being charged £90 and hour for a 15 minute meeting (she didn't do parts of the hour) so that she could read out to me a letter sent by the other solicitor and ask me what her secretary could type in response
well i can do that myself for free so i did- i just wrote to the other solicitor and told them all correspondence was to be sent to me and i dealt with it all myself- if i could do it at 19YO then i'm sure your DH can do it too.
Fan just a thought to mull over if you not your dh were the principal wage earner then the ctc would not be taken into account.
The system is rubbish but can anyone think of a fairer one that works across the board?
jack i think the CTC would still be taken into account as they have a joint claim because they live together.
a fairer one would be a national minimum payment with no reductions for anything and only increased once the NRP earnt above a certain threshold (the tax credit cut off point would be a good threshold- meaning no child would be getting a cut of another child's tax credits because NRP would be earning enough to not have to claim)
In my experience CSA don't take CTC into account at all :S
My XP has had another child since we split up and so claims CTC for this child
However, I still only recieve £5 per week from him as this is the flat rate for people on benefits (which he's on)
I got £5 per week before he had another child and I still get £5 per week now.
When I put my claim in they didnt even ask me if he claimed CTC, they were just interested in any wages from working
I am really confused by this, sorry if this has been addressed earlier but I got fed up of trawling through all the ranty agenda making up thread.
Ctc is awarded according to parent income and the number of resident children. In the case of separated families the rp receives Ctc, the nrp is not entitled.
Therefore Ctc cannot - morally at the very least - cannot be taken from one family to another?
The only thing that makes sense is if they are including the wtc as income but not the Ctc as the rp is already in receipt of Ctc for the child in question here.
Belated the nrp is entitled to tax credits if he goes onto have other children or existing children live in the home and he is named on a joint claim with those children's mother.
So he is not claiming tax credits for the children that live elsewhere.
Belatedmaybe - thats exactly why they don't take CTC into account. Thank you. This is the point I was trying to make in my post. Somehow I think I missed it entirely :S
Stephen my apologies wtc is deemed to be the highest earners so would be taken out of the equation but ctc would still be counted. It would still reduce what the nrp paid though which is worth taking into account.
Good suggestion but what would you set the flat rate to.
Mamato3boys because your ex is on benefits it is a flat rate irrespective of his income however if he gets a job it would be taken into account, the csa have the figures because they are all part of the inland revenue now.
Ah that's not fair though is it really :/
I'd tell CSA to stop my claim altogether if they started taking someone's CTC to give to my children. It just wouldn't sit right with me. I'd be lost without my CTC (sad but true) so I wouldn't like to be awarded someone else's
"Stephen my apologies wtc is deemed to be the highest earners so would be taken out of the equation but ctc would still be counted. It would still reduce what the nrp paid though which is worth taking into account."
ah i hadn't realised this.
"what would you set the flat rate to."
i'm no economic genius but those that work out the NMW, tax credits, benefits etc (apparently) base it on something. there are also people who work out the actual cost of living so i am guessing it would be possible to work out a basic cost of feeding, clothing, sheltering, washing etc a child per week using a similar method and arrive at a figure that was used nationally as a legal minimum. obviously it would increase inline with inflation like NMW.
Mama it would mean his other child benefits from both a reduction in maintenance paid to you plus the ctc so it's your child who would lose out, is that fair?
btw i have no doubt that whatever rate would be decided upon wouldn't be enough for some but it would be more than the zero some children are getting currently. really they need to tackle enforcement first before they decide on figures people can just continue not paying.
Mama, that is the only thing that makes sense to me - of course that doesn't mean it is what happens sadly.
Sock, that is my point he is in receipt of ctc for the children living in his household therefore it would be wrong to take that money away to give to a child in another household who is entitled to their own ctc claim (via the parent of course).
Earned income, benefits for the adult and wtc are a totally different thing. This would be the money from which a nrp should contribute to the upbringing of nr children.
Something that has just occurred to me too, how will this work with universal credits? That will include a portion for each resident child plus things like housing costs (housing benefit) surely they can't say that the nr child should get a portion of the money for other children and their housing? How can it be separated out if it is amalgamated?
I don't understand how XPs other child would benefit from having CTC taken from the claim based on them to give to my children though :S
Have I missed something?
If the ctc isn't taken into account would you still think the nrp should get a reduction in the maintenance paid to allow for those children.
If no reduction that would adveresly affect anyone who doesn't claim ctc or gets a low amount.
If reduction also given the children living with the nrp benefit twice and the other child loses out would that be fair?
The two men I had flings with didn't wish to use condoms when I informed them I was taking oral contraception either. No man ever has in my experience actually. I guess they are all evil bastards
Have you never thought of saying 'If you don't wrap it, you don't dip it?
Jacks - think I understand now. Just been googling to try and figure it all out.
Let me know if this is right, my XP will have already had a reduction placed on the amount of CSA he has to pay due to having a child that lives with him. (This is based on if he was working by the way) so the money hes losing from CTC isn't really lost money as its made up through the reduction. He wouldn't have this reduction if he didnt have another child, therefore there would be no CTC so he'd have been paying more?
So it kinda works out roughly the same either way?
Thats correct. In this instance when the op worked out the figures she found that she was slightly better off this way.
Glad ive got the hang of that, ill be able to sleep now haha x
has the baby ever been officially confirmed as his-did he ever do a dna test?
Jacks they don't benefit twice though. The resident children get the full amount of ctc that is intended for them the nr child also gets their ctc allowance via their rp.
Then the remaining income that is intended for them and their family. This is the amount that is used to pay towards the nr child with the remainder being for the adult and any resident children.
Belated they get the benefit of ctc and the benefit of a deduction in the amount the nrp pays. Don't assume everyone claims ctc.
Oh goodness I need to understand how it does work before I can work out how this compares with how I think it should work. Sadly I don't have enough brain cells left tonight
Wrt to claiming though that doesn't actually change anything. People who are not entitled are not entitled because their income does not need additional support. People who don't claim but are entitled make that choice for themselves.
Thats the point belated it is increasing the nrp income, if they earned the money rather than getting ctc would you say that amount should be disregard. Say two men both took home £350 a week but one it was just wages and the other wages and ctc should the second man pay less? Currently both situations would leave the nrp the same money to bring up the children they live with but if you disregard ctc then the second one has much more.
Ah! <penny drops>
Right, sorry to sound flakey but I need to process this one. I am too far through a run of night shifts to properly work it out. Thank you for bearing with me to get that explanation through eventually
I heard that CTCs won't be included in the future?
Because all benefit type payments will come under universal credit. CSA decisions won't change though. Eg, if you have worked out that you pay £20 a week now, you'll pay it then.
* if they have worked out.
You need to forget that tax credits are intended for children. They are just an income supplement for adults.
It makes no difference whether a parents income is made of of earned wages, or benefits they have had to ask for. If there is money being given in a parents name, then all their children are entitled to a share of it.
It is not taking money away from one set of children to give to another. It is taking money from an adult to pay for the children they chose to create.
This doesn't make any sense. My ex is a serial csa avoider, I told them he was claiming tax credits as he had a new baby and they told me they can't look at that due to data protection?
Is that not true? As that Bastard owes me thousands and I want it, whether it be from tax credits or anything else quite frankly.
Tickle, I think it may, unfortunately be something your ex has to declare himself, or answer when asked, IYSWIM.
See, can't rely on these cunts being honest?!
Yeah, tax credits are being abolished anyway aren't they? So how will they work out child maintenance from Universal Credit then? What will they take in to account/ not take in to account?
CSA payments go DOWN when the NRP has more kids, they do not end up paying more of their tax credits to the RP.
If you have children you have a financial responsibility to that child. CS payments don't reflect the actual cost of bringing up a child its a contribution.
I think in some cases it can actually go up. I put those rough figures in that OP provided before for the sake of maths and got this:
£115 tax credits
2 resident children
= £38 a week to the child he is NRP to
£0 tax credits (if he had no children with anyone else so no tax credits existed)
= £30 a week
£0 tax credits (not included for income)
= £24 a week
So according to the calculator I used, because CTC is taken into account, the RP gets more maintenance when the NRP has more children. If the CTC is not taken into account, the maintenance decreases.
Instead of considering £200 wage consider an income of £315 both as earned income and part earned and part tax credits.
No tax credits
2 resident children
NRP pays £38 to other child.
£315 made up of 200 wage 115 tax credits tax credits taken into account
2 resident children
NRP pays £38 to other child
Both these scenarios leaves the nrp the same figures for the children resident with him and non resident.
£315 made up again as wages and tax credits but this time tax credits not taken into account.
2 resident children
NRP pays £24 to other child.
Is it really fair for the other child to receive less because the government makes up for low wages
I have never understood how a NRP get a reduced CSA bill for living with another woman's children but his children don't get enhanced CSA due to his new partners salary.
his children don't get enhanced CSA due to his new partners salary.
His new partner's salary is nothing to do with his child support payments. In any circumstances. If the RP meets a new partner then can NRP start paying less? Erm, nope.
New partners are irrelevant and their income which they bring in is to support the household I which they live in.
You missed out the context of Orange's comment though, which is that maintenance is reduced as a result of resident step children which is totally one-sided.
Personally I don't think the new partner's income should be taken into account, but at the very least the reduction for step children needs to be removed so that it only applies to the NRP's bio or adopted children (as I said, I think it should be removed entirely, but that's unlikely to happen).
I also think the minimum payment of £5 for those on benefits or low incomes should be increased and/or made per child, even if it's not actually paid it can accumulate as debt. Given child benefit and tax credit rates, the Government assesses children to need about £70 a week minimum, not including housing costs or childcare. So I'd set the minimum at maybe a third or half of that per child, and if the NRP can't afford to pay it then debt accumulates.
What I'd like to see, in all honesty, is that child maintenance be guaranteed by the Government, ie they assess the NRP's income, pay the PWC and then claim the money back from the NRP. That way the PWC could rely on receiving the money (which also means it could potentially be deducted from tax credits which is an area that seems to annoy a lot of people) and the NRP would actually owe the money to the state which might make them a damn sight more invested in getting hold of it. Their complete inability to get money out of resistant NRPs is ridiculous.
Oh no I don't agree with NRP's maintenance reducing for step children. He has no liability or responsibilities towards his stepchildren so why would he have to pay less to his own children?
Now, say the NRP went on to have more biological children (a baby with his new partner), then I think a reduction I maintenance is justifiable. My reasons for this are that if he was still with his ex and they were to have more children then costs would need to be stretched further to pay for both of the children. That doesn't change when they have split.
In both circumstances where he has children living with him (both bio and step), then I don't think CTCs should be taken in to account. Especially when he has step children! Those children are nothing to do with him financially.
Whereas the way I see it is that paying the CSA rate of maintenance is providing the bare minimum in financial support for your child, and if you can't afford to have more children without reducing that bare minimum amount then you can't afford another child. Just like if the PWC or a together couple can't afford another child without reducing the amount they feed their existing child, then they can't afford another child either.
When you say bare minimum I think that depends entirely on circumstances.
How does he earn? If he doesn't earn a great deal then he obviously won't be paying a lot seeing as he has two households to run for the benefit of all of his children. If he has step children then he should make his own children priority and if he can, pay extra for them. His SC already have 2 parents.
How often does the NRP have his child? If he doesn't have them a lot then obviously he'll be paying more. If he has them for half of the week then of course his ex will be getting the bare minimum- his child is still a human being when they are at his and therefore need supporting.
As for "don't have more children if you can't afford it", my DS1 now obviously gets less now DS2 is here, but he doesn't live in poverty. He still has everything he needs but we don't get as much luxuries for him. Costs are stretched further but both children are still provided for.
Same applies to "NR" children (hate that term "non-resident")
Before DS1 came along, it was just DSD. She had 4 incomes supporting her and since then 3 brothers have come along. 2 here and 1 at her mum's. This hasn't impacted on her negatively financially.
How much does he earn? That should say.
I say bare minimum while bearing in mind that the average CSA award the last time I checked was £35 per week (that's per award, not per child, and discounts all the zero-payment assessments - there are so many of those that they pull the average down to £25). If we assume that £35 is for one child (even though it is often slit between more) then that is half of what the Government thinks is the minimum that one child needs (based on CB and CTC levels). So yes, that is a minimal contribution. If the only way you can afford to have more children is to reduce that minimal amount, then you really cannot afford more children.
Have I got this right?
If the OP's household income of £x was made up solely of her husbands's salary, then he would be expected to pay £y maintenance for his other child.
Their income however is made up of his salary, plus tax credits - of which some is awarded for her and his two children. As such, OP argues that he should be paying less than the £y he's obliged to pay, despite their income being £x.
So say it was reduced to £33.00 after NRP has had a new baby. Then the NRP's partner puts a claim in for tax credits and they receive £65.00 per week in CTCs. The RP of his first child would get about £9.00 out of that, equalling maintenance to £42.00 a week because the new baby was born.
Meanwhile RP keeps all of her tax credits for the first child, plus almost a tenner from the baby's tax credits. Which could have been one of many packets of nappies.
The first child would not be worse off.
The RP will still be getting less than before the ex NRP had another child.
Just remembered that it is reduced by 1/7th, so instead of £33.00 it would be reduced to £30.00. Add about £10.00 from baby's tax credits and there is a £5.00 profit, again whilst the RP keeps all of the tax credits for the first child.
How would she fuzzy? She will be getting more if tax credits are taken in to account.
The whole system is shit. I honestly don't think anything works.
I was getting maintenance from my ex, then he moved in with his new gf who also has 2dc.
My maintenance was reduced as a result, despite the fact that she was already receiving full benefits and CSA from her ex.
He then jacked in his job, so the CSA made a nil assessment. Yet he magically has enough money to get his cbt and a bike.
They've just had a baby together so ill be intersted to see how that affects CSA. Assuming they even find out about the baby that is!
I was thinking about this this morning and wondering (now this IS controversial- I know it wont be loved by all) if the system could be changed so that when a baby is registered at birth, both parents are automatically subject to a 'tax' (for want of a better word) payable to the Govt, of which a portion is returned in the form of CB to the parent who claims it even if the parents are in a relationship together. the rest could be used to provide things like free school dinners for all children and all ringfenced for things specifically for under 18s which my brain cant think of right now. almost like a NI payment for things for children, like for uniform allowances etc. and also treated by like a debt for those that didn't pay. this would however mean both parents would have to be named on the BC unless one parent wished to legally take on the other parent's payment for the life of the child til 18. it could also be made so that if one or both parents died the Govt took over responsibility for the payments.
obviously that's just a few minutes though and there are probably lots of reasons this wouldn't appeal to
everyone some people but I think something better than the current system is possible if the right people were in charge.
The original CSA assessment gets reduced the more children the NRP has, tax credits may be taken into consideration however the NRP is still financially responsible for all the children they've had so a reduction in tax credits to pay towards CSA makes sense, an NRP still pays well below what they would be paying for a child living with them.
To get around it the parent who is not an NRP can claim tax credits.
If paying towards the upkeep of a child for at least 16 years is unpalatable to a person they should take steps to ensure they don't have children.
They do live with them though. They pay the RP maintenance for the time the child is with the RP, but any other money is to make sure the NRP can provide a house, food, clothing, heating, electricity, a bed, transport, etc... for whe child is with the NRP.
People seem to forget that the NRP is paying towards two households and needs to make sure they me the basic needs for their child for when they are with them.
So all in all, the costs amount to exactly the same for the NRP aas the RP when it all comes down to it. Therefore, more contact equals less maintenance and less contact equals more maintenance. It's not difficult to grasp.
And yes, I know there are a lot of NRPs out there thatvwillcdo everything in their power to avoid paying towards their children, but I'm not on about them. They are a whole different kettle of fish.
the NRP gets a reduction for the increased amount of time a child is with them overnights.
Then the NRP gets a further reduction for each child they have living with them.
The NRP then pays CSA if they hate having CSS deducted from tax credits then the other parent can claim tax credits.
All in all the NRP is not paying a huge shedload to the RP for bringing up their child.
They get a reduction for having their child overnight basically because they are the one providing for the child on those days.
The NRP then pays CSA if they hate having CSS deducted from tax credits then the other parent can claim tax credits.
I'm a bit confused about the above sentence. ^^ Sorry if I'm a bit dim.
That's an interesting idea StephenFry but for parents who are out of work, would they take this 'tax' from their benefits? As an unemployed single mum I know I couldn't afford to pay it.
I think (if I was PM ) it would have to be part of the massive overhaul I talked about upthread, where wages and benefits reflected the actual cost of living. it wouldn't work with the system we have at the minute. quite frankly I don't think the current system even works now. people are going under on benefits ATM and UC will see that increase so unless benefits were massively changed then no it couldn't come from people's benefits.
I know you've had a work through the figures now, but I just looked on the calc and it says only WTC is taken into consideration?
sorry to add my two pence worth, not been on this site in like forever,,, but, came accross this ,,,the whole csa system is a great big farce!!
My ex h, "works" 16 hours a wk,,,(gets the rest cash in hand) .. his wife works full time, they are on csa 2, so he pays absolute minimum!
My husband is on csa 1,,i work and he works yet both wages are taken into account for csa.
Now, although i dont get tax credits,i totally understand what the op is saying,,,,
They get wages, cb, tax creds, and ctc
The ex partner gets cb, ctc, income support maybe,,,, this , therefor, means that the ex partner, gets both her ctc, and a percentage of the second familes ctc,,,,, so i totally see what they are saying.
One of my biggest gripes is,,, the law says you need xyz too live on,,, so therefore,,, when you pay a massive portion in csa, which in my husbands case he does, not far short of a thousand pounds a month,,, why does his ex still qualify for maximum benefits.
He didnt have a good job when they were together, he has never denied his daughter anything, providing he can afford it, yet his ex maintains a better life style than us, courtesy of his "csa contribution"
I am not a bitter ex wife, not a bitter new partner, i just think they should be a fairer system for all, rather than the current two which are running,,,,,,,,
If your husband had remained married to his ex partner, their DC would have enjoyed an elevated style of living when he got his better paid job, so why should his child not benefit from his increased earnings now they are apart ivegotahousefull ?
Or perhaps I should have asked, what would you deem a fairer system to be in your case?
The fact is littlemisssarcstic, my husband and his wife were finished 7 years before he got a better paid job,,,,maybe if he had stayed together he would of been in the same job he had,,, different towns, etc etc.
His child doesnt have a better life for his increased earnings, but thats another story!! my husband still provides necessaties for her as well.
I gave my opinion on the csa incompetencies, rather than to go through the ins and outs of my personal dilemmas with the csa.
A fairer system should be, that, if the nrp pays a high amount in csa payments why should the ex, get full benefits of ctc, income support, cb, prescriptions, full rent paid etc...... csa is an non accountable income, so she is more than over the minimum of what the law says she should live on.
They shouldnt be nearly three different types of csa systems running, they should be one,,,, we are on csa 1, my kids dont count,,,, myself and my ex are on csa 2,,,my kids get the second amount, my exes partners kids get the first percentage... they should be a fairer system for all end of,,, what and how, im not sure, but the ones they have running are not ideal!!
ivegotahousefull I'm taking it he only pays all that due to your income being taken in to account as well? I'm glad not many are on csa1 anymore.
What's csa1 and csa2? I've never come across those terms before?
CSA isn't taken into account for other benefits as far to often it isn't paid (not saying in your case ivegot but overall) which meant the rp couldn't afford even the basics.
Can someone answer my question.
My dh has left and hasn't paid anything at all. He has left us in serious debt.
He is with a woman who is on benefits. Lives in a big detached house 4 kids. big new people carrier. He isn't officially living there but neighbours have confirmed he is there "most of the time" and he has told everyone he is officially with her.
Will any of this affect the amount I can claim off him?
He is refusing outright to contribute to the mortgage or household bills even though he is named on them and has accrued debt to the mortgage.
ineed,,,csa 1 is the original csa system set up in 2002
csa 2 was deemed to be the new fairer system
and of course there is now csa 3 doing its rounds,,,,,,,my husband has paid csa every month without fail for 11 years ,, never missed a payment, his ex has been on benefits for all of these years,,,so she has wholly benefited from this,,,
feeling vulnerable,,,,i suggest you go to csa, if he moves in with her, it will affect what you receive as her four kids will receive the first 25 percent of his wages, your child/ren will receive the remaining percentage .
If he is named on mortgage and bills, and is earning, he is liable for them, if not all, at least half, you need to seek legal advice, good luck
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.