'was that "ransom" her share of the marital property by any chance?'
Nope - That's over and above a 50:50 split of matrimonial assets. Actually way beyond that.
'it is not true to say that children automatically go to the mother in the way that they used to 'belong' to the father. as you've said yourself you have 45% residency'
I had to pay for it, she did not. That's my point. It was made very clear to me that I would lose contact with my children if I did not pay up. Not just by my ex but both lawyers involved, they knew the score.
'also i'm surprised you're paying much if anything via the csa if what you are saying about the children being with you for 45% of the time is true.'
It is true and I'm pretty 'surprised' too. The 45% calculation is based not on nights resided with each parent as the CSA do, but actual time, i.e. weekends, evenings and holidays involve proportionately more care time, and more cost, than weekday school nights.
'so you should be paying 15% of your net income minus 45% realistically. if your facts are straight and that's not the case call the csa and get it sorted.'
No, it's not. 20% for two children, reduced to 15%. Only one night per week difference in the time they spend with each of us. That's the CSA calculation.
For parents who have equal incomes and share care of two children equally (as calculated by nights spent with each) Dad still pays Mum 10% of his income, and she gets to keep all the child benefit. She ends up with well over 20% more net income than him.
The really sick thing is that this will go down on the CSA's balance sheet under the "amount collected for amount spent collecting" balance sheet. This means that the CSA can look like they're doing their job when they are not. As I said equality first, last, always. The people who ultimately suffer from the calculation are low income parents with 100% care of their children whose fathers do not want to be involved in their care, and want to evade their financial responsibility. It all goes down on the same balance sheet. I pay the same as 40 scumbags who do not give a damn about their kids.
'incidentally no the csa don't take into account the RP's income. it's quite clear that at least 15% of their net income will be spent towards housing, clothing, childcare etc etc etc when they have a child living with them.'
Yes, of course, unless you are a wealthy mother with a wealthy ex. I provide accommodation for my kids, food, clothes, presents for their friends, mobile phone top ups, pay 60% of their school fees, 60% of any school related costs etc. etc. She lives in a house that's worth 2.5 times the value of mine.
The government made absolutely no attempt to calculate the costs of caring for children when they devised the CSA formula. By contrast studies in Australia suggest that parents with one third time with their children carry at least 40% of the costs involved. Their CSA calculation takes this into account, and what's really interesting is they have a much better "amount collected for amount spent collecting" balance sheet, suggesting that compliance is much higher with systems that are transparently fair, as one would expect, and the money gets to those that most need it.
'i don't know about anyone else (and £500pw net income is wildly beyond my means) but it is impossible to bring up a child on 15% of your net income - for most working single mothers with a young child full time childcare (in order to be able to work) is over half of their income gone straight away.'
It depends on your income. Studies suggest that the top income quartile spend only 20% more on their children than the bottome quartile. I spend well over 50% of my income on my kids. My ex spends approx 10%.