We pay £250 more a month in CSA payments than we have to

[MrSnow]

Long story short, I had a son after an extremely short relationship 16 years ago. I had an average paid job but under the old rules of the CSA I paid 40% of my wages, around £400 quid a month. 12.5 Years later I get married to a woman I love and we have an amazing little boy. We also brought a house together. I didn't tell the CSA any of this and carried on paying the £400.00 for around 2 years. The CSA then contacted me and asked for a full review of my circumstances, as a result they are now only taking £150.00 a month. I contacted my son's mother and we agreed to keep paying her what we were paying her as it was only fair on my son. However, a year down the line we could really do with extra cash. AIBU to ask the mother of my son to take a deduction of £150pm so we'd only be paying her £250.00pm a month? My son is 16 next month and applying for colleges. I don't have any contact other than the occasional phone, text, Christmas and birthday presents. Not that it really matters but she owns a house that she rents out, rents a house herself and has a decent convertible car. My Son has everything, and more, that he could wish for in terms of material goods. What I'm afraid of is if she kicks off?? I don't want to cause any stress or concern for my boy.

*"The CSA amount is the minimum for which you are legally liable."

No, the CSA amount is what the law says is a fair amount for you to pay*

These two comments are not contradictory. It is a minimum, since you are not allowed to pay any less than the CSA orders, and you can pay more if you like. It is also what the CSA says is a fair amount for you to pay based on your income.

AndTakeYourPenguinWithYou

That's a really good way of looking at it from a lnigusitic / logical point of view.

The problem is that it's a fair amount ie what you should pay - for me fair amount= should. In terms of it being a minimum, I don't agree. When I had to borrow from family so that I could afford to buy my daughter Christmas and Birthday presents because the CSA left me with no spare income whatsoever it didn't feel very minimum. I would imagine I am not the only one who was left in that situation. And this was working 2 jobs and before I had more children. The fact is that I put off having kids until my daughter was 17 because I knew I couldn't afford them doesn't feel very much like a minimum.

"A minimum amount" and "a fair amount" sound different to me in this situation. One has an implied judgment of doing the minimum possible for a child, the other suggests it is a reasonable amount to expect given that person's income.

But the problem with that is they work out what is fair based on what you earn, not on what it actually costs to rear your child(ren).
If they say you should pay 30 pounds a week but that leaves the RP paying 200 pounds a week to rear the child, is that the amount you "should" be paying?

I don't know what the answer is, I'm just saying there is more than one way to look at it.

Yes, because if the couple were intact still, and on a low income, the state would support them.

My DSC's standard of living is significantly higher than it would have been if their parents had stayed together and is significantly higher than that of their step and half siblings. Their mum doesn't contribute financially to their upbringing. She lives off tax credits and child maintenance despite the fact that the children are in school and she could work at least during school hours. Nobody is "locking her up" for not contributing.

But the problem with that is they work out what is fair based on what you earn, not on what it actually costs to rear your child(ren).
If they say you should pay 30 pounds a week but that leaves the RP paying 200 pounds a week to rear the child, is that the amount you "should" be paying?

Oh, it was an absolute shitebag of a system. To give the alternative example, I paid £454 per month, and my ex was on benefits which I remember at the time worked out less in terms of the cash she got from me (she got HB and CTB as well, but would have got those without a child). Basically the EXTRA money the government gave her to look after my daughter was less than £454 per month.

The pre-1997 CSA rules were absolute diamonds.

It's the same with benefits though. The amount they suggest you need to raise children especially once it's more than two children are mind blowing. I am sure I'm going to lambasted in family court because my 11 and 5 years old share a room, but given the local authority rate is £600 and a two bedroomed property rents for £750 a month - I'm sleeping in the dining room - I would genuinely love to hear their solution !
The whole thing is fucked. I say to friends unless your husband is dangerous stay with him till the kids leave home because you won't be bloody happier I can assure you

Is that because you're expected to work now your youngest is at school?

I'm not sure the family court will care about an 11 and 5 year old sharing particularly.

No I do work.
Believe me the court will care social services did the cats bum face when they came out to do the section 7 report

If you have got to a point where you can't pay the extra amount (or part of it) that you were paying, you should not ask her if she can take a deduction, but inform her politely that you will have to modify the monthly paid amount for personal reasons - whilst still paying more than the CSA ordered amount. This is not unfair to anybody, it would be unfair to your current family if they had to suffer whilst you paid more than you can afford to your ex and son.

Oh my god, what a lecturing bunch you are.

My dh has two girls he doesn't see. No amount NO AMOUNT of court visits, could get his girls back. Their mum (also a head case) repeatedly blocked contact. They wouldn't be in when he called, she'd reduce hours/block extra. He couldn't call at the door at any other time out of the contact hours, or she'd ring the police. He couldn't go to their school, as she blocked that too by threatening them with court. Happy enough to take his money, not good enough to be their father.

Try to understand this. Courts cannot solve the problem of an alienating parent.

Personally I think he shouldn't have to pay a penny all the time she is alienating them from him.

Exactly corngirl. My friend divorced his 'headcase' wife. They had 2 girls. Court ruled he could have access. When he was due to pick them up, he would arrive on time and they were out. Then years later he found out on the days he was not due to come, she would tell them Daddy is coming. They would be all ready and waiting and he would not show.
The good news for him, is that now they are 16 and 18, they have wised up and now spend more time with their Dad.

We don't know the actual story.

What always strikes me with alienating parents is that it's rare that I see the non-resident parent asking for residency. Just contact.
Surely, faced with actual parental alienation and no hint of abuse, the fairest decision would be to let the children live with a different parent that ensures contact with both parents. But surely the non-resident parent would have to ask for it. Court wouldn't grant it if the non-resident parent wasn't interested.
Speaking as a parent who allows limited contact between DS and his father, but has not prevented contact in any form, despite all that exH has done.

In my experience, asking for residence is actively discouraged in situations that could be described as parental alienation. In fact it's highly recommended that you never mention the phrase parental alienation as it is not fully accepted in the UK family courts.

You also have to convince the judge that the trauma of a change residence is less harmful than the trauma of continued alienation - something that no-one can really know.

You're likely looking at a psychological assessment as well - these things can cost tens of thousands of pounds, and can often be after years of litigation so the NRPs financial situation may be poor after forking out for thousands of legal fees already.

No judge is going to remove kids and put them with somebody they haven't seen for years are they ?

Change of residence after parental alienation does happen - have a look on The Custody Minefield website. It's just very tricky.

No judge is going to remove kids and put them with somebody they haven't seen for years are they ?

Not if the alienated parent only requests it years later.

That assumes the courts are handling alienation cases effectively. They aren't. There's plenty of cases where contact has been stopped for years or repeatedly stopped, reinstated and stopped again for years and years and the court's response is weak.

Also, I agree it's not easy, but for people who claim to have spent time and money for contact, why not shared responsibility or residency from early on if the other parent?
My feeling is that for the most part most non-resident parents are happy to have limited contact with the children anyway and not really up for picking up the hard part of raising a child.
Perhaps harsh, but that is my impression from most descriptions of "nut case" exs.

Because often at the start, an application for contact is reasonable and one for residence isn't. Particularly if the father has worked full time, perhaps with a long-ish commute, and the mother has been a SAHM. Perhaps the children are young, possibly even too young for overnight contact. The courts like to keep the status quo.
It's only after years of litigation that it comes to light what is really happening and/or the years of litigation and the adversarial nature of the family courts fuel the alienating behaviour and hinder the effectiveness of the targeted parents reaction.

Or perhaps they feel like residence is so unlikely, it's pointless asking for it, and that they would settle for every other weekend, if only someone could make it happen.

There are cases of alienation where the targeted parents also contributes to the alienation (often inadvertently). I'm not sure many people would instinctively know how to handle an alienated child or prevent it from happening. The advice I've received has sometimes seemed counter intuitive.

I personally feel that there are cries of alienation where it's nothing of the sort (as demonstrated by the man on this thread who has clearly contributed negatively to his situation) but there are also men out there trying everything they can and receiving very poor advice or very ineffective action by the courts - and ultimately it's the children who suffer.

Also the dynamic of alienation in a pure case is likely to have been in place during the marriage. Certainly my husband left his previous marriage feeling like he had no right to see his children. When we met, his self esteem was in absolute tatters. He didn't know it was okay to disagree with me, to have an opinion on anything, to put himself first every now and again. He was totally worn down.

Alienation isn't always overt either, it can be subtle and insidious, often without the nrp realising it's happening until the damage has been done. For years we put various issues down to dh's ex being awkward, stubborn and inflexible but what was happening was actually far worse. Little incremental steps which began with insisting the dc call the new man in their mum's life 'Daddy' and systematically undermined dh's importance in their lives.

Fouromore my dh was the same

The only alienation I've seen is where the man - sorry but it usually is - pissses off to rebuild his life and then pops up after the hard work has been done. They seem a lot less keen on the sleepless nights, nappy changing stage