Partner and csa payments

[Justaquery88]

Ok so before I get flamed here is the background

My partner has an 11 year old daughter with ex she has remarried she earns 40k and her husband around the same. They holiday three times a year money is not short at all.

We have three kids together and partner has to pay csa £300 a month but we are in a very bad financial state atm. His ex says he only has him one night a fortnight this is not true but without a court order to prove she’s lying csa won’t listen.

We are in debt can’t afford luxuries for our own three no holidays in a few years. If we pretended that we broke up he would have to pay me csa and his payments to her lowered.

Morally yes this is wrong but she is not a nice person to us at all

Legally where do we stand? No we won’t be claiming benefits or anything like that just csa which he will pay me
And I’ll put into the family joint account

£600 a month won’t actually pay towards all household bills plus personal expenses for the child.

It’s plenty for all child related costs though. Water, gas, electric, clothes, school equipment, trips. Plus other things on top of that. I’m baffled as to why that isn’t enough.

The bills on top of that are each other’s own responsibility. Especially if the nrp is expected to provide a suitable place for their child to sleep. How is the nrp supposed to provide that if they are expected to pay half towards their ex’s rent?

Also in cases where the contact is 50/50 or very close to, I can see even more why the “nrp” would be more interested in their own bills than their ex’s.

You keep saying the £300 is more than you should be paying but then you seem to think youll gain an extra £300 if you commit fraud. You wont as he will still be paying maintenance and the ex will report him. Your actual gain will be, according to a pp, £80 per month. Stop thinking about the £300. That will never be yours. All the anger is over £80. If you reduce to what the legal minimum is it will be an £80 gain for your children. Thats not going to cover a day of childcare, but i get that it will help.

Cms is the legal minimum. Absolute bare minimum. He is no prince in paying £20 a week more. However, if that is more than you can afford then absolutely take it further. Get your dp to speak to the ex and say due to the bereavement your finances are momentarily unmanageable and he’ll have to reduce to the legal minimum for the medium term. Failing that do everything lillygolightly

Why are you not doing anything with the children? Lots of things cost very little or nothing. Take them to the park, get on Pinterest and look for park activity ideas. Or find paths around your area. Once you get out and about you find things.

But remember this isnt about £300. It is about £80

When the child is with both parents equally there is no maintenance paid.

When there’s a main parent the NRP does have to contribute a percentage towards the bills, clothes, food for their child. Because the resident parent is incurring a larger expense as they’re paying for their child as Well as themselves, so the dad (in this case) is contributing a percentage towards the costs of is own child’s living expenses.

My DC cost a lot more money than £600 a month to clothe, feed and house and all the extras.

A combined income of £71k and he only pays £300 a month?

Disgusting.

OP I know it sucks that subsequent children are somehow worth less than the first child in the eyes of the CSA.
And it's sad to see that after much reform it's still the same. I haven't read the whole tread, but the only thing you can do for your children is working and hopefully in a few years you will be better off and afford the luxuries you desire.

When my DC where little, DH wages where calculated something like 100.- first non resident child & 120.- for 2 resident children. That is about 18 yers ago.

A combined income of £71k and he only pays £300 a month?

The calculation shouldn’t be based on the combined income figure though because the op isn’t responsible for maintenance.

Child maintenance is only based on the actually parents salary not combined with partners.

The father in this case earns £39,000

Can’t you prove how often she’s with you?

Take a dated photo of her each visit? Send to CMS.

it is not £80 pcm it is £20 pcm on the details that the OP has given!!

As the child is obviously over 12 now - if he has been paying for the past 11 yrs, then said child is now bloody expensive. My 12 yr old, currently growing is costing a fortune - football boot, trainers , school shoes and one pair extra were all changed 3 times last year think size 7 to size 10. Adult shoes are bloody expensive! (£450 min)
Add in laptop for school ( compulsory)
2 after school activities (1 demanded by my Ex) (£1000 with kit driving and attending and other bits related )
sport at the weekend
Parties
holiday child care - £120 per week minimum ( 7 weeks for me)
general clothes
school uniform x 3 per annum
food, food and more food
the list is endless

His £3600 pcm are a part of the expense but not all. By all means drop it £3360 if that makes you better off but the EX is not here to subsidise your lifestyle. You are still having the DSD for less than 100 nights per annum which is actually not alot.

I don’t expect my ex to pay my council tax for me especially when he’s got his own to pay no one has said they expect that that 300 a month probably covers a bit of wraparound care for his first daughter too which is expensive. The calculation is the bare minimum required. If the childs mother only did the bare minimum required to bring her up she would be villified.

I hate that when dsd comes to see us we can’t do anything fun it’s boring all the time for her. Mine are too young to notice how boring it is. I am not a horrible person at all I find it all quite unfair that we don’t have £300 for our three kids spare at the end of the month but the ex gets it for hers.

'Fun' stuff doesn't have to cost £300/month

There are LOTS of things to do that are fun and don't cost money. NT does a list of 50 things. www.nationaltrust.org.uk/50-things-to-do

The money is for the child. He has a financial obligation to the child. Clearly CSA feel that £300 is appropriate for his income.
If the mother earned £100k it would make no difference - he still owes £300 for the child.

it is not £80 psc it is £20 pcm on the details the op has given

seriously? Wtf op! Youre Considering fraud over £20 a month overpayment beyond the legal minimum?! Surely nobody is that much of a nob!!!

flirtygirl completely agree with your laat post.

I know it sucks that subsequent children are somehow worth less than the first child in the eyes of the CSA. What on earth are you talking about? The first child's money gets cut because her father decided to have more children. Or do you think once you have children with someone else you can forget about the first? I won't be getting my violinout for the poor men who don't want to pay for their kids.

You earn 71k. She and her DH earn 80k.

Yet she can afford 3 holidays a year? And you can’t afford to pay for the child?

Something doesn’t add up

I wonder if the MIL who provided this free childcare for OP's children also provided free childcare for her son's first child as well.

I bet she didn't.

GimmeTheSnacks - no you can't forget about the first. But why is the first worth more than a 2nd or 3rd child to the CSA?
Recalculations should not be solemnly in favour of the first child. They need to be fair to all children.

Think about it. Or are fathers not allowed to move on? Is their life on hold till first DC is an adult? Should we woman never have a relationship and a family with a man who has DC from a previous relationship?
There is a moral issue here.

Line her pockets I don't think any parent would think £80 a week is lining anyone's pockets once food, activities, clothes etc are accounted for. He would still have to pay something so the total amount would only go down a bit. You're willing to commit fraud over what could possibly be a £20 a week 'over'payment?

When a man has new children they reduce the money for the old children. This is in itself is disgusting
So disgusting even though this is exactly what happens in "together" familied.

The moral issue is that both mothers and fathers need to support their children. Once you decide to have kids you need to make other decisions in your life that take account of that choice.

Or are you suggesting that we should all have as many kids as we want and the tax payer /someone else will pay for them ?

Having four kids and then going “ gee whizz, kids are expensive, who knew? “ is just plain stupid .

I wonder if the MIL who provided this free childcare for OP's children also provided free childcare for her son's first child as well.

I bet she didn't.

If she didn’t there could have been a whole load of reasons why. She might have been working 11 years ago when the DSD was little and now she’s retired.
The girl’s own mum might have got first dibs as favourite to look after the child.
She might have been ill.

Usually it’s the other way around and the first child gets this sort of effort and attention from the paternal grandparents when the dad separated from his first wife. And when it comes to the second children it’s too much effort because it’s a case of “been there done that”.

Having four kids and then going “ gee whizz, kids are expensive, who knew? “ is just plain stupid
Thats not whats happened here is it. They had kids they could afford and cirmcumstances changed and now theyre struggling. Happens to a lot of people. Except because its a dad and a step mum its seemingly ok to tell them they shouldnt have had kids.

Would you say that to a struggling newly single mother? Someone whod been made redundant? Even a "together" family in the same situation where theyve suffered a loss and now need childcare x 3? No. No you wouldnt because its insensitive unhelpful and just plain fucking rude.

The girls own mum’s parent’s that should say.

If you’re relying on family for childcare you always run a risk they might change their minds in future. And actually not many people care about single mums childcare problems. It’s always suck it up or get a job around childcare (because that’s so easy), the NRP usually abdicates all responsibility with regards childcare if they can’t have the child on their turn the mother is mean to sort out the childcare deficit.

The CMS panther is a bare minimum, with subsequent dc the CMS is lowered. The father is currently paying the minimum he needs to, if he’s very upset etc about the £20 a month extra OP is claiming they’re overpaying he can sort it out.

Tellingly the father does not want to and appears accepting (at the very least), of his child getting £20 ‘extra’ per month from him.

OP sounds very much like she’d like the DSD & her mother to be suffering on the breadline. She sounds jealous.

Try committing fraud, you’re still not getting the three exotic holidays a year you want. Unless as you so charmingly suggested to a pp you get yourself a ‘better paying job’ and stop acting like everyone owes.

Having babies you knew childcare would be required. It gets easier once the dc hit 3. Then gets very very expensive once they start school and all it’s associated costs, plus wrap around care crop up.