CSA levels vs actual cost of raising a child

[Fmarf]

So, not a great relationship with the birth father of my eldest two - never gives much in any level. Paents set without CSA involvement based on their calculator and his guide as to income. He has since (recently) got a full time job and claims the CSA calculator is saying he should pay less. "Out of the goodness of his heart" he is paying ever so slightly more than the CSA recommend. In terms of actual costs of raising a child (using child poverty action group figures) he's obly actually contributing about 12%. Have pointed this out to him but he is sticking to the CSA figures. Have asked for help with brownie and guide trips and he is giving all this "the CSA say I should pay less than I am already" stuff. So I am thinking - how does the CSA come to its figures and how does that relate to the actual costs of paying for a child? Does anyone know?
In the meantime I am pondering how to reply to his standpoint. We both are in new relationships but his is with someone who takes him on expensive holidays and has a four bedrooms house (there are five of us and we are in a three bed so it grates a little). Basically, I know that he wants for nothing so I am looking for a good strong point about CSA figures!

It may be better for you to go through a solicitor.

Out of the £3800 take home pay I thought STBXH had (it was actually just over £1000 more than that but anyway ...) he was expected to contribute £800 for three children according to the CSA but it isn't really designed for high incomes.

I'm in the process of getting more - STBXH has always been an absolute arse about money

Two children, it's 20% of his take home. Absolutely nothing to do with how much it costs to bring them up. It'll be less if he has them overnight, 1/7th less for each 52 nights he has them in a year, ie one night a week or two nights a fortnight.

It's just a formula, doesn't take account of how much disposal income the non RP has.

I have always found a percentage to be a bit odd really. 15% of net take home pay for someone earning minimum wage is about £150 a month. 15% of someone earning £50k a year is about £450 per month. I suppose the challenge is to only have children with someone who earns decent money just in case!!!

It stinks, basically, and is an example of the anti-child, anti-woman slant of our society.

I was widowed when DS was young, so didn't have to deal with the CSA. We had life insurance, thank goodness, and I followed the advice of a wise mentor in my profession, who said "Never give up your job" So I had pretty much the income I needed (if not the energy & sleep!). Life insurance was more than any CSA settlement (especially back then). Cold comfort at the time (and it was a long time ago now), but every little positive counts.

Part of me would like to take him through a solicitor but I don't want to engage that much with him! Oh how I wish he was fair about this. But he isn't ??
So the CSA has nothing to do with the actual costs of raising a child? What's that about then?
What are they supposed to be achieving if they aren't actually ensuring that parents pay a fair share of the costs?
Slight tangent - so glad that lady has got back payment type payments from the guy that went on to be a millionaire! My situation is not the same but there's a vague similarity!

The CSA is an organisation that is not fit for purpose unfortunately, and they do nothing to take into account the cost of actually raising a child. They base their charges on the NRPs income and how many nights a week the NRP cares for their children.

Even if the CSA improved though, they can't take money that he hasn't got, and I don't think NRPs should have so much money taken from then that they can't provide a home for themselves that is nice enough for their children to stay in. Resident parents get benefits for their children if they can't afford them, and they are there to subsidise both parents equally. I think if RPs claim benefits to raise their children, then maintenance from NRPs should go back to the state. That would give the state some incentive to recover costs from parents that don't pay.

Your ex having holidays and living in a big house paid for by his new girlfriend is irrelevant, the children are not her responsibility.

It's too hard to work out, which is why the csa sticks to a %. Then you get blended families like yours, where it's tricky to tease out how much one child is costing from a family budget.

Also one parents idea of what a child needs may be vastly different- violin lessons, if the mum wants the child to have them should dad contribute 50%, even if he doesn't think they should? Holidays, should a contribution be made based on dads cost for what he would choose, or mums? Some people would rather put the heating on than sit in a jumper....

Some people can spend thousands on their children easily, some can keep to a budget on benefits. Which do you use to decide?

One thing I will say is you can't really blame him that you have 5 in a 3 bed house if the other two kids aren't his? He shouldn't be expected to finance a 5 bed house for you.

Also his new partners wealth isn't relevant, just as if you met and married a millionaire he would still be expected to contribute to his children's upbringing.

Have you run the figures yourself to see if he is paying the csa amount? I'm afraid you can't insist he pays more (unless there is an agreement over private schools or something). My understanding is the csa can overrule court agreements, but it might be worth having a chat with a solicitor.

It's basically applying the same formula to everyone, When in reality every family is different so it's no wonder most people aren't happy.

I think the child action figures are unrealistic. they say the average cost of a first child per week is £91.51 excluding rent, child care and council tax.

This would make my family in extreme poverty. There is no way we could afford anywhere near that.
On another website it says the average cost of clothes per month for a baby is £70 who is really spending that much?? Toys for a child 4-12 years is £60 a month. £50 a month on food for 1 teenager.

Average is over all people. so where the average on toys is £60 means that some people could be spending £100s a month but others are spending £5 a month.

You can only afford what you can afford. CSA works on the idea by using a % of income. Which means that the standard of living in both homes will be similar to each other and to the income if parents were together (but allowing for 2 homes to be run)
There will always be cases where the NRP is on their knees while the RP is living it up and where the Rp is struggling and the RP is affording holidays and treats everywhere.
But in most case using a % means that both parents can feed, clothe, house the children and buy birthday presents etc for the children

What's a solicitor going to do? Unless he takes home over £100k pay the courts have no jurisdiction.

I was always of the impression that the CSA rates were just guideline minimum amounts that the government felt were enforceable. And actually, in the real world where parents want the best for their children, they should be paying whatever they can.

My tosser of an ex isn't even paying the CSA rate for his income, but because he is paying more than a fiver a week he thinks hes the worlds No1 dad.

Even if the CSA improved though, they can't take money that he hasn't got,

The CSA can't even take money that he has got !

I think the child action figures are unrealistic. they say the average cost of a first child per week is £91.51 excluding rent, child care and council tax

Our household income is 20k for a family of 4 (plus cat!).

So 20k, /4 = 5000 per person per year. So £96 per person per week. Adult or child. Rent and council tax come out of that amount. So not impossible IME.

We manage. We pay CSA too. Likely not 50% of what the ex spends (she has a household income of 90K), but what we can.

This is why the CSA is such a blunt instrument. Some families bring their children up on £96 pounds a week, some have a far higher budget.

Yes, his partner's wealth is irrelevant to the amount however when he pleaded poverty regarding paying £100 towards a brownie holiday it raises my hackles. He manages to support his hash habit and frequent trips down the pub but can't pay for his kids to have a holiday? No. Not ok. And he does bugger all else anyway - sees them less than once a month for 6 hours and never calls them between visits.
And he too parades himself as an pillar of the community.
Also rolling my eyes and making a vomface! Lol!
It is basically a minimum payment level though is what I am getting and it doesn't account for higher incomes. Or a-holes with a self-righteous attitude!
Seems that my own situation is in no way unique. Thought that would be the case but it's kinda sad anyway .
I think I feel clearer on how to reply to him now anyhoo.
My reply won't include any sympathy for his "lack of money" - just in case you were wondering.
I find with him that I have to keep things brief as he gets all uppity very quickly. He was abusive when we were together and reverts to that when feeling vulnerable.
Wish me luck - I'm going in...

But both parents have housing costs, rent etc which is why I gave the figure of £91.51 as that is the figure they give for raising a child excluding housing costs.
£91.51 is far more a week then a lot of people would be able to spend on 1 child

bf1000Oh I see- I read it as you were saying that wasn't enough to raise a child on...

Thing is Fmarf, you can't force him to pay more than the CSA amount, whatever you think of his finances and where he spends his money. He's not obliged to pay for them to go on holiday- it's your choice to take them, and a holiday isn't a basic need. Holidays and brownies are extras that you decide upon depending on your income, - so that would be a voluntary or joint decision between the two of you, same as if you were together. Unfortunately if he won't contribute, he won't contribute.

If he's always been like this why do you think he'll step up now?

It might be less stressful to report him officially to the CSA and let them deal with forcing him to pay, then at least you know he can't stop paying on a whim, if you really rely on that money.

Absolutely. That's her business - it is only in terms of him saying he is poor but I know he is not and living to a very high standard thank-you-very-much. He can't have it both ways - either he is poor and genuinely struggling for money or he is living well in which case it is his personal choice not to pay more. Honesty would be nice.
He's such a self-serving piece of whatever anyway - the children wouldn't be losing anything much if he just backed off altogether.
I feel though that if he wants to be a proper part of their life then he needs to walk the walk too.
Not something he's ever achieved. He talks a good talk but that is all it ever has been.
I know I know - if wishes were bottles of wine etc etc.

Thanks Micah - yeah - don't know why I am expecting him to do this now when it doesn't fit his MO. Wishful thinking!

Have you seen his finances? Outgoings/incomings etc? You can't know whether he's rich or poor- he may be living on credit and running up debts. Same as saying a family on benefits with a flat screen tv must be coining it in. Even if he is living in her posh house and driving her car he may be contributing to rent and bills- you can't assume because she's rich she's letting him live rent and bill free.

Dh's ex doesn't believe we manage on 20k, apparently it "isn't possible". We do struggle for money at times, but outsiders wouldn't think so.

I haven't. He won't tell me how much he earns and I'm not pushing on that. There's a long history here - was with him for 13 years - so I have a good idea what is likely to be going on. Granted, it's my idea only.
He has always been someone who 'presents' what he thinks people want to see or what he wants them to see in order to shape their opinion. He's very good at it.
I don't want long debates with him. I just want him to make a fair contribution. I couldn't match up what the CSA does with the reality. Initially he wanted nothing to do with the CSA but now that he has used them to minimise his contribution he is always referring to them as a justification.
Annoying but there us go

I get 60 per month

I get £6.72 per week for 2 children from my ex, who has since failed to make a single payment, the CSA have done fuck all about it.

Good job I earn a decent wage and my OH is a wonderful person who also contributes.

In almost 15 years I have had £0.00. I don't mind though as I am not beholden to my ex for anything and the peace of mind that brings is worth more than the £5.00 or so a week he would be assessed at if I had applied.