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.

ChiRup, you said:

Mr Snow - drop all payments altogether. It is easy enough to use financial loopholes to get around child support and get your payments down to £5 a week.

If you are not in the childs life and allowed contact then cease to pay. Simple as that.

Yet you're blaming other people for vile posts?

That advice from you is one of the most vile things I've ever read.

Your ex is a 'certifiable headcase' and many of us are no more than self-serving, predatory harpies just desperate to use you as a 'sperm donator'. Says you.

Yeah, you're right, I don't know where I got that impression from

I've already apologised for using that kind of language to describe her, it was unfair on a platform such as this. As for the second point, are you denying those sort of people exist?

you still cling to the idea that only women should be able to determine whether a child is brought into this world

Carrying a child has health risk in the short and long term, it can end life too. The responsibility of the child goes beyond 18 and the stats show women are left alone to provide everything for the child in many cases.

To be fair Penny when the OP states his ex is a "certifiable headcase" (which he has apologised for, I dont think this is him giving a low opinion of women - just one particular woman.

Thanks for the post, Shereebobbins.

Pisssssedofff

Looks like OP wants his DS1 to have bare minimum,because his DS2 requires more...

Perhaps men should be given equal rights when it comes to termination? No more allowing women to have children without the mans consent. No means No

Your consent began and ended at the point where you had sex without taking responsibility for contraception. If you believe women should be able to be forced to have an abortion, do you also believe men who take inadequate responsibility for their children should be sterilised?

In the end his solicitor said it's time to walk away as the court can only imprison her which they won't do, so he did

I can't understand any parent walking away. A threat of prison would have been just what his ex needed to ensure contact happened. He should have pursued it. He still should now!

FWIW, I've got a dear friend whose partner hit her so badly she became deaf in one ear.

After he got out of prison, he went to court for contact with their 2 kids.

She disagreed vehemently, but when her choice was go to prison herself, or let them see him in a contact centre, then she did.

It might have worked. Everyone was hopeful that it would be good for her kids; he hadn't always been a shit, and they missed him.

Unfortunately, he turned up high, and contact was revoked.

He still goes round moaning to everyone who will listen that he's the wronged party.

Does it mean it's OK for his ds2 to have less so that his ds1 isn't affected by the birth of another child?
If they had been living together, his ds1 would have had less because he had a new sibling. That's life. The second child is just as deserving to have things than the first one.

mr snow id ignore most of the idiotic posts on here-neve rheard such rubbish

we dont know the ins andouts and frankly its none of our bees wax

reduce your payments youve done nothing wrong

i know all about mad exes my dh's for starters fruitcake isnt the word

Some of your stories are very sad.

But presumably they involve much younger children.

His son is already 16. Plenty old enough for OP to make an effort with a relationship.

Of course, as I said before, he's not his 'amazing boy' so he's obviously not worth the effort...

FlyingScotsman
well maybe OP should have thought about his financial situation before having DS2? OP should get a better job/work longer hours and stop trying to cut his DS1 support

How did she manage to get hold of your sperm?

Somerville, Maybe if you'd lived it you would understand it.
I won't explain it, it's not my thread.
No need to persue it now as the son caused holy hell at 15.
He had realised what had happened and in the end his Mum had to contact DP.
They have a great relationship now and he even lived with us for a couple of years until he wanted his own place.

Looks like OP wants his DS1 to have bare minimum,because his DS2 requires more

Its not fair to start throwing digs about his youngest child. Your wording sounds a bit blamist towards his youngest son tbh.

well maybe OP should have thought about his financial situation before having DS2? OP should get a better job/work longer hours and stop trying to cut his DS1 support.

Including the commute I do a 60 hours a week. I'm paying 300% more than the recommended Goverment figure. I don't know what world you're living in but I suggest the telephone code starts with La-La

Why are you ignoring questions about your relationship with your son, OP?

I've already apologised for using that kind of language to describe her, it was unfair on a platform such as this. As for the second point, are you denying those sort of people exist?

An apology for using that language on this platform doesn't alter the fact that this is what you think of her, does it? I'll bet that's exactly how you refer to her IRL.

I've yet to meet a woman who uses men as 'sperm donors', and I'm in my 40s. If, however, I've been incredibly sheltered and that 'sort of people' do exist, why weren't you more aware of it when you had sex with your ex? After all, as 'that sort of person' is so ubiquitous, chances are she was going to be one of them, right? Or, erm, not.

You clearly have a very high opinion of yourself, too, thinking as you do that your sperm is so very desirable

OP, if you can't like your ex, at least try to respect her. She's brought your son up alone (proof she's not 'certifiable', IMO). For the sake of both of your sons, show some respect to your ex and to women generally. Don't let them grow up thinking that women are all users and out for what they can get, and when they don't play ball, they're headcases.

Can't think why judges aren't giving some of these dads more access.....🙄

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

So its only fair on your son until you have another one, and then your oldest can accept whatever is left over?
Its up to you, noone can force you to pay an amount that actually represents what it costs to raise your son. If you feel like you can justify only paying a token amount because the CSA will let you do that, thats up to you.

And if you really think your ex is that bad, why did you let her raise your son all this time?

Sorry OP I live in the world when I have 2 teenage DS and get less then £300 a months for both.When Im cash strapped I don't contact CSA or exDH trying to increase payments ,but do exactly what suggested --look for a better job/work overtime/cut expenses (not DC expenses though)

FWIW, I don't think there's anything wrong with reducing money due to more children.

I have three.

I'm not going to make the youngest wear rags so the oldest doesn't continue to get as much as he did when it was just him.

On the other hand, all of my children are loved by me, not just one of them.

An apology for using that language on this platform doesn't alter the fact that this is what you think of her, does it? I'll bet that's exactly how you refer to her IRL.

You're probably right. A bit like women refer to the exes/father of their children as the same thing or something similar.

I can't understand why people are offended by the OP's choice of words to describe his ex and why they keep harping on about it He knows her, we don't. But of course it can't be true or accurate because she's a woman and women aren't like that are they?

On the maintenance, well I'm not sure. £400 a month isn't a huge amount. It seems so because we're so used to nrp's making a nominal payment. However the parent with the most money should probably contribute more and £250 is still more than nothing.

I don't need to know the circumstances to know that you describe your ex as a head case, yet you have left your son with her because she made it tricky for you.

As your son is 16 I'm sure that if you cared enough you could do something.

In answer to some of the points raised on this thread my view is:

If you share 50/50 care then both incomes should be taken into account, if not the resident parent is already contributing more than the non-resident parent and given the level of support calculated in most instances, a mute point. It is far from equitable but a least something towards raising a child.

If you get into a relationship with someone who already has children then you need to recognise that those children and their needs come first. If you or your partner are are struggling to keep the children you have already chosen to have then it is not a good idea to have anymore. If you do you need to take personal responsibility for any hardship likely to result.

It is a sad reflection on our society that a child maintenance agency exists at all. It is not difficult to make a fair,consistent and near equitable contribution to children you have chosen to have. Hide behind the failings of an overwhelmed government agency and dress it up accordingly if you want but the key issue is that lots of people don't want to financially support their children. If you wanted to you would. It is that simple and your excuses are transparent.

Child maintenance is your contribution towards the costs involved in raising a child. It is not about the other parent and their perceived lifestyle. Paying child maintenance is your personal responsibility. The fact that a government agency has had to get involved in collecting what you owe to your children should be a matter of shame.