To ask about CSA changes - is anyone happy?

[pennypinchingnamechanger]

Sorry not a very exciting AIBU but just a topic of discussion I thought others might be interested in...

Everything I have read on here so far about the new Child Maintenance changes, moving from CSA to CMS, the charges, the new rules etc has been negative.

We will be better off financially under CMS rules.

AIBU to ask if anyone else will benefit from the changes too?

I also agree that perhaps she may be more happy to have the child at yours if the child spent time with it's father not it's step parent who is so gleeful about not having to work that perhaps she's understandably resentful of you

I agree with fedup
I know one family where the children (2 teens) split their time 50/50 (they do a week with mum, then a week with dad)
Mum claims cb and tc based on her income and 1 child, as does dad.
Dad earns more than mum, as he has spent the last however many years building his career, enabled and supported by mum.
Mum only worked part time, as both parents believed that was what was best for the family as a whole, and her x years out of the workplace have affected her ability to earn.
They've agreed to a 50/50 split of costs. So eg, dd1 needs shoes on a 'dad week' so dad buys them and bills mum for her half. Which sounds fab, only her half of the last pair of shoes she had to pay was more than she would normally agree to spend on shoes. (dad has more income and therefore was happy to buy the expensive shoes)
Hardly seems fair!

fedupbutfine - Why so shitty? You explained your situation and opinion and I explained mine. I never said you weren't entitled to your own opinion!

I can assure you we are not laughing all the way to the bank, we are not well off at all, we sacrifice a lot for ourselves to provide for the children and we are often just about coping with money. In addition to that DH has been paying maintenance to his ex, due to current CSA rules for years! I am not a SAHM cause we are so stinking rich that I don't need to work, I don't work as I have two children of my own including a baby and it would cost us more childcare (we have no family to lend a hand) than I would earn. I would love to get back to work part time but it doesn't seem possible til the kids are all at school.

I also don't care for DSD all the time, DP works odd hours so is often here for her too.

Tension. I guess. If you look at it like that then her mum also has 50:50 by proxy enabled by her paid for childcare. Such is life.

Norma. It's not a problem, I was just saying it's a cost that doesn't need to be paid if she couldn't afford it. He's offered to have her himself if she has to work, not just me and she always declines. Which is absolutely fine, nobody is making an issue or asking her reasons, her choice, but we offer.

My ex has another ex wife to, we have an agreement were both happy which he pays direct into my account.

She won't have her money through him and gets it through CSA straight from his wages.

He is more than happy to pay her direct, she won't hear of it.

So who gets penalised under these circumstances, her or him? But it will stop her get him assessed every six months I suppose.

ineedawittiernickname. I think it gets hard when one parent buys something and the other is expected to pay half. DSD has everything she needs here bought by us and everything she needs with her mum bought by her mum. One off costs like classes and school trips are always agreed before being booked/signed for and then cost is split 50:50.

Not at all Icanseethesun, they have never lived together or been in a proper relationship they have been separated since before DSD was born and always had 50:50 well from about 6/9 months I believe.

mummytowillow - Under the new CMS your ex's ex wife cannot demand to be paid that way, he will get the option to pay direct and as long as he does thats fine, he can continue to do so and not pay the charge and she can't change it.

Under the current csa an attachment of earnings is only done if the nrp does not make arrangements to pay the assessed amount.

Norma - I'm not fussed if DSD comes here days her mum is working or not, it's not for my benefit. I have two other children and a house to run I have enough to keep me occupied. It's an offer we made to help her mum and was made without strings or conditions. She has declined, which is fine and it was left as that, open offer for her to take anytime she wants or needs to but not mentioned regularly.

Yes jacks but any parents on current attachment of earnings will be given the opportunity to start afresh when their case transfers to CMS and their attachment of earnings will be cancelled and they can start to pay direct.

Tbh I think it's families like mine that will suffer most because of feckless men refusing to pay what's due. I would love it if the ex took payment for shoes or uniform or even their clubs but it will never happen unless he is forced to in law. Why should my family pay for his fecklessness? Ok it's 'only' 4% but that's 4% more than we should have to pay.

Charge him by all means, don't penalise us.

pennypinching who pays for school shoes/bags/winter coats etc or do they have 2 of all of those?

Thanks, I'll let him know, I think he'll be relieved.

How is it right to cancel the deduction if earnings? So many nrp's are going to be rubbing their hands with glee over that

why so shitty
because you assume that every situation is like yours? because you demonstrate no empathy or understanding whatsoever of the fact that 50/50 doesn't make the non payment of maintenance fair in all cases?

On the other hand, I do my best to acknowledge that there are many cases where the NRP (or the person legally classed as NRP) gets a raw deal. However, what you find on here again and again and again is new partners who believe that the single ex is an alcoholic whore with nice nails as a direct result of maintenance payments. Yawn.

You should try a split and see how it works for you.

The point is penny that he has already refused to pay hence being on an attachment of earnings there is no reason to believe that will change. He's obviously lied to mummy of willow if she believes the mother forced it, it simply doesn't work that way.

norma - I didn't say it was right, it's stupid but its the new rules. It's because the NRP has to pay 20% on top if the money is collected so they want to give them the chance to pay direct. It's an incentive though as otherwise they will set up another attachment of earnings and they pay 20% more!

I agree with fedup it gets more than a bit grating when new partners whinge and gripe about maintenance payments giving the impression all rp's are self indulgent and neglectful

Good luck to them getting that out of many nrp's!

If someone is evading maintenance what on earth makes them think they'll pay an extra 20%?

Did you realise they can only take a certain % of the wages and that if it's felt that the amount they take will leave the nrp with insufficient funds to live off they just wipe the debt off. I can see them stopping the 20% quite quickly and leaving it to being just the 4%

I would never complain about DH paying maintenance for his daughter, all parents should financially support their children. Except in this case, he has exactly 50:50 residency, pays half of everything and for everything here and his ex gets CB and tax credits for his daughter and he doesn't. She has no more DSD related costs than he does yet she gets maintenance too. I think that's unfair, you are entitled to your own opinion...

Norma they can take arrears in lump sums up to 40% of the NRP's net wages.

If a non paying NRP is currently on a deduction of earnings order, CMS gives them the chance to pay direct with the threat that if they don't another DEO will be set up and 20% added.

penny...can you accept that 50/50 care doesn't necessarily mean a 50/50 split of costs? For example, you don't work so can pick up your patner's children. I work. I can't pick up my children. On a week on/week off basis, I have to pay childcare for both weeks because if I don't, I don't get to keep the childcare for my week. You say you're happy to pick up for me but I don't want that - I'm their mother, not you. I want my children with me as much as I possibly can. And what happens when your children go to school at a different place? what happens to our shared care arrangement then?

is it fair that when I met, my full time earning potential at the top of my game, at best, was about 1/4 of my ex's earning potential about half way up his career ladder. We had three children based on our joint wages, not on mine alone. He can go on to have more children with you. I struggle to put a roof over our heads and that's without the childcare costs. Yes, I get Child Benefit and some tax credit but between them, that doesn't cover one week per month of my childcare costs. My ex wouldn't get either of those because he earns too much, even taking into consideration his 'new' children with you.

Now that's before the cost of haircuts - which always seems to fall to me. Or the cost of school shoes which I always pay. Or school uniform which I always pay. I always pay these because my ex and you say that as I get 'all the benefits' they're not his problem. My children like to dance and swim. I pay for their clubs - 100% of the time because my ex says they can't do it on his time because you can't afford it. So they go half the time but I cop the full cost. He could afford it, I'm sure, if his partner worked, for example, or if they stopped having two cars and takeaways 4 times a week. But I'm not allowed any kind of opinion on his lifestyle......

Well said fedup

'I would never complain about DH paying maintenance for his daughter'

Really? Isn't that exactly what you are doing in this thread? Complaining how unfair it is that your DH pays maintenance.

So the new rules mean legally your DH doesn't have to pay maintenance - and if he chooses to continue to pay what he has paid for years, despite no legal obligation to do so, you'll happily sit back and say nowt?

Tension, you've quoted only the first sentence of my post and totally changed the meaning! If DH was an absent parent I wouldn't be with him if he wouldnt pay or tried not to pay maintenance for his child!

I do think it is unfair that in equal shared care situations one parent is deemed to be the NRP and is forced to pay maintenance. It's not just me or my personal situation. The new rules under CMS state that in these situations no maintenance is to be paid. I understand not all shared care situations are the same and it is sometimes one parent that takes the financial burden and pays for most things so they rightly get maintenance as a contribution toward this.

DH has not paid maintenance through choice he has no choice by the current CSA rules and wouldn't want to risk not paying and getting a DEO. He has always paid in full and on time. He has also always had his daughter 50% of the time, we have the same costs for DSD as her mum does, uniforms, shoes, clothes, rent, bills and share equally all extra costs dance classes, school trips. Yet his ex also gets £80 per month CB and however much tax credits she gets. Of course he and I feel he shouldn't have to pay his more money. Once his case is moved to CMS it will be assessed as nil and closed. We will have that extra money (which we could really do with as we don't have lots of money ourselves) and his ex will still get the CB and tax credits for their DD and DH will still pay half of all costs associated with DSD.

Fedup. Our situations are very different. DH is not your ex who leaves you to pay or everything and refuses to contribute. I understand why you feel the new rule about 50:59 shared care isn't always fair you're right it isn't always fair. However the rule does date 50:50 shared care where "care is equal" so I think there is room for either side to provide evidence and prove care is not equal and financial responsibility falls with you.