to think that I am not 'lucky' or being 'ungrateful'

[BuskersCat]

Basically I asked DDs father to buy her some SHOES for pre-school, proper full shoes (colour doesn't matter at pre-school) XP bought Dd a pair of trainers, I thanked him for them, closed the front door and moaned at DP that he had bought trainers and that I'd have to swap them for shoes and make up the shortfall in price.

DP thinks I am being ungrateful and that I am lucky. I disagree, we get £61 a month from the CSA for dd, I thought the least he could do is buy her a pair of shoes for school, bearing in mind in 3 and a half years this will be the second pair of shoes he has bought her.

I don't think a father buying shoes is lucky I think it should be expected, especially since the maintenance we receive is so low. DP thinks this was nice of him. I also think that changing them from shoes isn't me being ungrateful, I said thank-you for them!

why would you pay less maintenance because rp won't put their feelings to one side when maintenance is for your CHILDS needs

Because unless, as I suggested, the NRP shoves a wad of notes through the RP door (assuming he knows where his DCs live) there is no way for the NrP to pay extra unless the RP is prepared to co-operate.
The CSA will happily run a credit balance but they won't pass on extra payments the NRP makes to the RP - and believe it or not there are RP who won't engage in civilised conversation even when it involves their DCs financial security.

The vast majority of csa cases come about because the nrp refuses to pay reasonable if any maintenance china. You seem to be being willfully obtuse.

if a nrp pays less child maintenance because the rp refuses to engage with the rp, the nrp is at fault. Contact and finances are seperate issues and should be treated as such. It is wrong to use money as some kind of bargaining tool/ punishment, just as it is wrong of a rp to refuse/reduce contact as a way of punishing the nrp.

How many nrps are desperately trying to pay more maintenance I wonder?

The vast majority of csa cases come about because the nrp refuses to pay reasonable if any maintenance china. You seem to be being willfully obtuse.

Nope - just challenging offensive generalisations and stereotyping.

Ad nauseum based on pretty much your case alone it seems

In general the csa is used as a last resort by rps when nrps refuse to honour their legal and moral obligations to financially support their child/ren. what's wrong with saying, generally that's the situation if it's the truth

I haven't noticed any posts saying everyone who uses the csa has a useless scumbag exp.

One can say, generally speaking X, without denying the existence of y. But we don't go around saying generally x, but rarely y because that is impled by saying generally, rather than, it is always the case that.

If 50/50 was the starting point in law rather than one parent (usually the mother) then there would be no need for most families to need maintainence as they would just cover their own costs for their share of the week.

It is a shame the CSA are needed as in an ideal world people would choose better partners so stay together but if things go wrong then they should both still be adults and co parent on harmony.

NRP can get a rough deal, the PWC can use the child as a weapon. The also get slated for only paying x when a good percentage of PWC dont work so are not paying anything themselves.

My ex pays £55 per month for my dd. The csa worked out a few years ago that he could afford £7 a week. Then it went up to £15 when he got a different job, and then it hasn't moved much since. If I need to buy dd something big then I tell him and ask for half the cost. He's never not given me it, and I wouldn't want to strip him of the money he needs to run a car so he can see her, buy her xmas and bday presents etc. I don't think financial support is the be all and end all of being a good dad. Just so long as they're giving what they can afford and not taking the piss.

Happy mum as the pwc it can often be very difficult to earn aliving however if eg you have a pre school child and few skills which allow you to earn more than the nmw ( so childcare costs = more than earning), if you don't have supportive family, if your xp does no/little/unreliable childcare, if you have mh problems, if you have a child/ren with sn/disability. It is also accepted that women of childbearing age/mothers are discriminated against in the job market so getting a job/keeping it/earning enough is that much harder for women, who are generally speakin the pwc. Also despite laws re equal pay in practice women often get oaid less for doing the same job.

Ime it is not that pwc care don't want to contribute financially, it is that they cannot for the above reasons to name but a few

When we split up he gave me every penny spare and it was more than he could afford. We went to the csa because I needed to claim benefits for a time and so maintenance had to go through them. This was 13yrs ago. When I came off benefits after a year, we decided to just stick with the csa arrangement because I claimed working families' tax credits and if he'd given me more money the difference would only have been knocked of the tax credits anyway. I'd rather the difference was in his pocket to spend on her than with the government. (Obviously if he was well-off I would feel differently about that)

I think CSA should be able to see pay slips if the NRP refuses to send them, rather than just seeing the contracted hours. I also think that 10% a month is pitiful amount and it should be closer to 20-25%

Happymummy,

I can't remember where this info came from off the top of my head it may very well have been gingerbread,but more lone parents are in work than not.

just so long as they're giving what they can afford

The problem with that is that it's totally subjective.

Buskers you should be getting 15% unless he has other none resident children they are also collecting for