Can Exh say he cares for girlfriends children to get csa payments reduced?

[Lovedlots]

Exh is now living with his girlfriend and her 2 children. Girlfriends exh pays maitainance for her 2 children. CSA have said exh can have his payments for my 3 children reduced due to living with his girlfriend and her 2 children. They take 20% off his wages for the 2 children then i get 25% of what is left. I can't believe it. It seem so unfair. Is this right?

[Riakin]

Yes this is right.

Generally speaking he will afterall just like your new partner would, support their children.

[Lovedlots]

What new partner? I support my children alone. Her children are already being supported by their own father. I just doesn't seem fair.

[niceguy2]

Yep, that's the way the system works

[ChasingSquirrels]

Yes that's how it works.
I agree it seems unfair - if the children's dad had another child of his own to support that would be different.
But that is the CSA rules.
Of course - you ex could always agree to pay above the CSA calculated amount and not reduce it (although it doesn't sound like that is likely from the tone of your posts).

[Riakin]

Hi lovedlots,

I think you've misunderstood what i meant by your new partner. I meant WOULD to be when you get a new partner, they WOULD support your child in some way, be it physical, emotional or financial.

Hope this gives clarity.

[Zanywany]

That seems so unfair on you Lovedlots and I just hope my xh never know this or he will move his girlfriend ASAP in so that he can reduce his payments to me/DC. Seems ridiculas of CSA.

[Lovedlots]

Thanks everyone. Just stunned by the injustice of this 'rule'. It took me so long to get him to pay up in the first place. The girlfriend was the ow and the reason he left. She must be laughing all the way to the bank!

[Riakin]

There isn't actually an injustice really. It will be inevitable that you will one day 99% certain get a new partner who will support your child financially.

It makes no difference whether this is your partner supporting you, or your ex supporting her children.

In and if blatantly honest there is actually no injustice at all.

[Newbabynewmum]

I'm sorry OP. that's really shitty and unfair on you guys. Will u be ok for money now? Hope ur ok x

[lifeshock]

Of course it isn't fair. He pays less for his children because the women he ran off with has children. He should support his own children not someone else children. Those other children should be supported by their own dad. Why should this poor women have her money reduced. It is only THEIR children who will suffer

[evolucy7]

'There isn't actually an injustice really. It will be inevitable that you will one day 99% certain get a new partner who will support your child financially.'

Riakin - do you really believe that? I think there are actually quite a large number of women who do not go on to be in that situation.

[SardineQueen]

No experience of this personally but that sounds all wrong to me too. Totally illogical and bizarre.

[MrsGuyOfGisbourne]

What a crazy rule - makes no sense at all - so his own DC may suffer hardship, not to mention the stress on Lovedlots - who on earth makes these stupid rules????

[Newbabynewmum]

And "one day" ... What about the OP now? She can't just say to the bank "oh one day I'll have a partner to help me pay for things" ... It doesn't quite work like that.

[elastamum]

The OP's exes new partner will get child support for her kids and her ex reduces his contribution to HIS children to support her kids too. And as she has 3 kids thats a considerable reduction.

Hardly fair, but unfortunately thats what happens when the CSA simplify the rules too far because they cant run the system.

The idea that it will all work out fair because the OP will get a new partner to support her kids is just ridiculous. What if he has kids of his own? I certainly wouldnt let any new partner reduce support to HIS OWN CHILDREN to support mine.

[gillybean2]

99% certain of finding another partner? Haha. That is obviously a male point of view. I know plenty of lone parents who do not go on to find a new partner. Certainly not one they set up home with. Including myself! Yes some certainly do, but 99% certainty? Where is your proof of that?!

OP yes the calculation is correct.
The sad reality is that you really do need to try if at all possible to bring in your own income which pays the bills and to treat the maintenance money as a bonus. When you are dependant on your ex it causes many problems and issues. Afte rall he could decide next week to give up work and have his NP be the breadwinner in which case you'd get no maintenance. There is nothing you could do about it if he did that.

If you're struggling to make ends meet you need to find ways of bringing in more income and don't rely on your ex.
Do you work? If not can you find yourself a job that fits in around your dc? You can keep £20 a week if you work under 16 hours. Local playgroup, lunchtime assistant etc might be options.

If you already work are you able to up your hours at work at all or do some overtime? Can you find another job in the evenings your ex has the dc (pub, supermarket, waiting on table or working some overtime at home etc)?

[Lovedlots]

Glad to see i am not the only one who thinks this is unfair. I do work thankfully but part time. Exh was the main breadwinner and i supported him through his studies so that he could improve his job prospects. We both had children and therefore we should both contribute equally to their care and upkeep. I would not expect a new partner to pay for my children, neither would i take money from him that was meant to support his children. A full time job would ease the money worries but finding one is the problem - then there is the childcare. Anyway thanks for all your responses. Just need to get on with it after another kicking from the ex!

[changeforthebetter]

"There isn't actually an injustice really. It will be inevitable that you will one day 99% certain get a new partner who will support your child financially."

Maybe OP doesn't like the idea of being financially dependent on another man again as she has been let down once. Maybe she is working towards her own independence but the father of her kids has a primary responsibility to his own children and not to the children of another couple. It sounds very bizarre. As for the suggestion that you get an evening job on top of your own, and look after kids, run a house...... double So when would OP actually have time to raise her children, who would look after them when she is working evenings/nights and when she gets ill from working stupid hours??



OP - please check with CAB/Welfare rights on this. It might be wrong

[gillybean2]

changeforthebetter my suggestion was possible evening work on the nights the dc are with their dad. Therefore their dad would be looking after them...

[Sapphirefling]

Riakin - so which are you then ? The husband who thinks it's hilarious that he's pulled a fast one to make the ex suffer or the OW who has landed herself a cash cow at the expense of someone elses kids ?

Op - it stinks. In the meantime, perhaps do what Riakin thinks you should and rush out there and naba rich bloke to pay for your kids.....

[Wellnerfermind]

As I see it he isn't saying he cares for the children to get the CSA reduced, it's reduced because it's through the CSA that is the calculation.

The problem is with the CSA calculations, but how they do simple calculations to keep everyone happy is the question.

[SardineQueen]

It makes no sense that just because a person (usually the man who is NRP) gets a new girlfriend, his responsibility towards his own children is reduced. It makes no sense at all.

[Sapphirefling]

Exactly Sardine. 'IF' I ever ever, got involved in a long term relationship again and a new partner had children, there is no way on earth that I would expect or ACCEPT a reduction of the financial support thay made to their own kids, in favour of my own. It's crazy.

[Wellnerfermind]

No it makes no sense.

It also makes no sense to me that a government has to set up a department to act as a debt collector.