ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
Is this true? WARNING DM link "Fathers to be hit by rise in maintenance..."
If it is, we are going to be in the sh!t AGAIN. Merry Christmas to all those Fathers who actually pay through the nose and can't afford to look after the family they have living with them AND we have our Child Tax credits taken off us to give to his ex who never let him see his DD in the first place.
I know there will be Mums out there who are shafted by their exes but it is ones like my DP and my kids who are being destroyed by the CSA. Bankruptcy looms.
Sorry - It just never ends. Money, money, money. They will take our house and our kids will be on the street and they DON'T CARE!
He would also get a reduction based on the resident children though, even if they're step children.
"Yes, first families come first"
What about PWCs who go on to have more children and then spend less on the "first" children as the pot doesn't clearly go as far the more children are involved?
A parent with children living with them should not have more children if they cannot afford them.
Interestingly most pwc on here (ime) don't agree
Several posters have already said that a PWC should not have more children either if it means that they reduce the basic provisions they make for their existing children. The CSA payment is a statutory minimum - if the NRP cannot afford to have another child without reducing that statutory payment then they shouldn't have more children. Similarly if a PWC cannot afford another child without reducing the basic provision they make for their existing children then they shouldn't have another child either. As previously said though, I think it would be an unusual PWC who paid for a new baby by not feeding/clothing their older children - and in that situation it would be classed as neglect.
Well for once I agree with Xenia. If you already have children with one person, you can't just go off and have more kids with someone else and expect the first family to fend for themselves. There has to be legislation in place which will protect the children of the first relationship.
I have seen cases where the standard of living for "first children" drops significantly when the pwc has more children. This is often the case when the pwc gives up work for example, due to the new, younger children. The "basic provision" for the first children is continued to be met (by maintenance and through child benefit, not through the pwc who is no longer earning), yet all the extras they've become accustomed to are stopped.
Also, I think niceguy is right in that fairness depends upon where you sit. The children of the first relationship receive reduced maintenance once the NRP has another child with someone else.
I think that's sad for the first children, and not something I would choose to do, but I don't think it's quite the same. To me, reducing CM for a new baby (or a new resident step child which is even worse) is like a PWC deciding to only give an existing child two meals a day in order to pay for a new baby. It's not the same as having fewer extras. To me, certain extras are important and I wouldn't compromise on them for the sake of another child, but I think that's personal choice. Basic provision isn't, and that's what the CSA payment is. The basic needs of the first children aren't reduced just because the NRP is suddenly responsible for more children for whatever reason.
Too many "to me"s in that post. Need more coffee.
But it depends on the amount of maintenance. In reality the value is well in excess of what is required for basic provisions (particularly as it should be less than half of what is required in total due to pwc element and child benefit), and so reducing it in no way impacts basic provisions. Only if maintenance is less than half what is required for basic provision would your point be true.
The average CSA award is about £23 a week. That's pretty basic.
But no one situation is an "average" situation. Gangram was pretty specific in referring to cases where cm is in excess of this.
£23pw from each parent is £200pm. Plus child benefit £87pm. So £287pm for one child. I'd say that more than meets the basic needs of my child. Plus on those values there would undoubtedly be tax credits the pwc receives on top.
Those of us who have worked from when our chidlren were babies put the costs of a child at more like £14,000 a year out of taxed income for a nursery place or £25k+ for a nanny, then when the children start school school fees. Our court order says I pay 5 sets of school fees and thereafter 5 sets of university costs alone (as I earn more than their father). Those elements alone are absolutely massive, plus I house them all so we can't live in a one bed flat, then you add on food for five and then the day to day stuff - money for school charity, school trips, shoes shoes shoes as their feet grow. I don't think non resident parents realise the actual daily cost but for me the answer is both parents work full time and both pay half the child care and both have the children with them half the time and split all child benefit, tax credits (not that I have ever had a tax credit and I am about to lose 100% of child benefit) half each.
I didn't read gangland's post that way: In reality the value is well in excess of what is required for basic provisions suggests they think that cases where CSA is only a basic amount are in the minority. There was no "if" in that statement.
£23 could be for any number of children - that's per assessment not per child. I checked the latest statistics after my post, it's £23.60 when nil assessments are included, £33.40 when nil assessments are excluded. Even using the £33 figure, for 2 or 3 children that's hardly anything - not much more than £10 or £15 a child.
An NRP working FT on NMW would have a basic assessment of £31 for one child (no reductions applied). The average salary in the UK is £26,500, the same NRP on that salary would have an assessment of £51 per week. So to have £23, or even £33, as the average shows that most assessments are pretty low.
Say £33pw is being paid by an nrp for 3 children, based on his wage(with no fraud). This means that he's earning, say £132pw net. If you're saying that the cm is low, then you're also saying that the income is low. Which may lead to the question as to why they decided, as a couple, to have 3 children on that salary. The lack of provisions for "first children" didn't seem to apply while they were still together?
However sometimes people deliberately reduce their pay - stop work and live off their new wife's income or give up the good job to work in a bar in Tenerife to avoid paying. The more traditional one is run a company and not take much out of it for salary.
This is proving an interesting case as the wife's new lawyers got permission to do raids which helped find evidence of the allegedly hidden wealth.
He would be earning £160 net (there's a reduced rate for incomes under about £150) but yes, quite a low amount, less than FT on NMW. Several thought, one of which being Xenia's post about NRP's reducing their income after separation (either deliberately or by circumstance). Secondly, is it really ok to continue to have children and dilute your financial contribution just because you also did that in your first family? Should people not learn from foolish decisions?
As for why, I can only speak for myself but when my second and third were born I was working full time with a view to further progression once the kids were at school, XP went to college whilst I was on ML to improve his employment prospects, we didn't need to pay for any childcare because one of us was always home. There was a clear long term plan in place - as babies they cost very little and we expected to be much better off by the time they cost more. It was a gamble - a combination of naivety and a pretty dysfunctional relationship. The difference is that I have acknowledged it, learned from it and have continued to take responsibility for the children that were borne from it as best as I can. My XP has not.
I would say that unless resources are significant, then resources available for the first child in any family, together or separated, are always reduced by another child. Unless of course they're fully funded by the state.
The minimum payment of 5 pound per week should certainly increase. It has not increased for about 15 years. The minimum payment is usually paid when NRP is not working. Why should the maintenance payment for the child of an unemployed NRP have, unlike virtually everything else, depreciated significantly? That element is long overdue an increase.
Allnew I have four children of my own and yes of course we could have given more to just one child. However that is something that we have made together as a family. We also sat down and worked out the long term financial consequences or each of our children and planned them accordingly. That is completely different from one parent deciding in isolation that they want to produce further children at the cost of the ones that already exist.
I met my husband when our stepson was a pre schooler, I was madly in love with him and quite self centred and wanted us to have a huge wedding. It was made very clear that would not happen as he had made a promise to the mother of his son that he would fully financially support her being a SAHM. We did not want children straight away as I was not ready, but we had to wait longer that I would have wanted because of his existing commitment to his existing child . When you are a step parent life is a constant stream of compromises. You have to accept that or it will never work.
That's fine if it works both ways, but ime it is doesnt
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.