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

Ofc theres always a risk but presumably they were not expecting MIL to pass away. Its so incredibly insensitive to tell someone they shouldnt have had kids then. Its disgusting.

Just because its a second family its appparently ok to do that. Vile to be honest.

I think it’s disgusting to decide not to financially support all your dc just because you are no longer getting free childcare.

Is the eldest dc getting free childcare, who pays for that?

You don’t get to decide you’re not feeding l, clothing, housing one dc, because you prefer you’re younger dc.

Yeah except that hasnt happened has it?

And its nothing to do with "preffering" what an absolute joke

The OP wants to find a way to for her husband to stop paying maintenance for his eldest child.

That is exactly what she’s trying to do.

Except she hasnt?

And i still dont think its a good enough excuse to tell her she shouldnt have kids tbh. Both are as bad as each other.

But why is the first worth more than a 2nd or 3rd child to the CSA it isn't and I don't understand why you're saying it is?! Considering they can't be bothered to chase payment for a start!

gimme

I guess that poster means that often cms payment for a first child is more than you would spend on subsequent children per month.

This is often the case (usually when theres no childcare involved as this is the most expensive thing!)

And i still dont think its a good enough excuse to tell her she shouldnt have kids tbh.

My ex’s exw said this to me a couple of times. She is basically one of those people who doesn’t think before they speak and then apologised later. She my ex shouldn’t have had his kids. I knew she meant the ones with me, but I turned around and said “yeah starting with yours”. I didn’t mean it, but it gave her a taste of her own medicine.

I hate it how people can so freely say that second children shouldn’t exist.

*She said my ex

I have an 11 year old, I'm now intrigued into how much he costs me a month.

Clubs - £100
School lunches - £46
Phone - £12
Food - a Conservative estimate of £100
Petrol used to run around £60
Electric £20
Water £5
Rent, difference in 2 bed and the 3 bed rental we have. Roughly £300pcm

= £643

Extra expenses I've had this month

£50 school trip
£25 swim fees for school
£40 trainers
£30 new school jumper & shirts

I'm now up to nearly £800 without any days out or pocket money.

Everyones 11yo will cost a different amount which is why its ridiculous to say that cm is "never half the cost"

Whilst greys 11yo costs almost £800 someone who doesnt have that to spends 11yo will be hundreds less.

I guess that poster means that often cms payment for a first child is more than you would spend on subsequent children per month That isn't the case at all when you factor in half of what the child costs....food, clothes, school uniform, childcare, clubs, presents for parties they're going to, the extra cost in bills, extra fuel to ferry them around etc.

I know it sucks that subsequent children are somehow worth less than the first child in the eyes of the CSA

Are you serious? Up to 19% of a NRPs income can be taken as maintenance. That’s 81% left for any subsequent children.

If you look at the stats, over 50% of maintenance owed via the CMS goes unpaid. Of that which is paid, the majority is paid at the bare minimum of £7 a week. The CMS rarely uses the legal measures is has to pursue and secure maintenance, particularly because it involves referral back to the court system. I have heard of cases were £thousands were owed and a judge has let it be paid at £5 a week. Many never receive what they are owed with bailiffs struggling to gain access when Liability Orders are granted. In fact, the CMS has been writing off historical debt. The system is, at best, incompatible with self employment and NRP’s are able to reduce their liability to £0 by stopping work and being supported by a new partner. My ex works cash in hand but despite my numerous reports to the HMRC, continues to do so. He claims not to live with a new partner and declares no income to HMRC. How he lives - presumably on fresh air - is anyone’s guess yet still the system supports him.

No. First children are not considered more valuable by any stretch of the imagination.

That isn't the case at all when you factor in half of what the child costs....food, clothes, school uniform, childcare, clubs, presents for parties they're going to, the extra cost in bills, extra fuel to ferry them around etc

Definitely can be if you have little/no childcare costs. Not all of us spend ££ on clubs and "ferrying around" you know.

Mn is like a bizarre competition of whos kids cost more. In rl other than childcare i dont think theyre that expensive.

My bills arent any more than they were pre ds... other than food which is maybe a 5er a week more?

Are you serious? Up to 19% of a NRPs income can be taken as maintenance. That’s 81% left for any subsequent children

Wrong. Its 81% to live on entirely. Not directly for subsequent children.

Sotiredofthislife - yes I am serious. Because that 81% is not solemnly calculated for the subsequent children.

More to the point-and you know that if you have read my post- is that the CSA does give you a detailed breakdown of how they calculate maintenance. And it really was something like 100.- non resident child and 120.- for the 2 resident children. It's about the value that is placed on children by the CSA. Why should a first child be worth more than any subsequent children?

Wrong. Its 81% to live on entirely. Not directly for subsequent children.

Exactly! By the time the nrp has paid all the bills they need to pay and paid debts etc... I bet the subsequent children aren’t left with the same amount ring fenced just for them as the nrp pays for the first child.

Not all of us spend ££ on clubs and "ferrying around" you know. neither do I, we don't have spare money. However plenty of people do. My bills have definitely gone up. Pre children I hardly spent any money on food but they need good nutritious food. I wouldn't have bothered with heating before but now I do. I just think nrps should pay for the children they helped create whether they live with them or not. If her mum and stepdad work full time which it sounds like they do, they will probably need childcare. Childcare is expensive.

Exactly! By the time the nrp has paid all the bills they need to pay and paid debts etc... I bet the subsequent children aren’t left with the same amount ring fenced just for them as the nrp pays for the first child. But some of those bills will be for the children they live with! Same as some of the maintenance is for the child's main residence. It is not all fun money!

However plenty of people do

Thats their choice. i wouldnt enrol my child in expensive activities and then demand half from my ex tbh.

I dont fully agree that childcare is the nrps responsibility because again its a choice they have no control over isnt it?

getyour how do you know they don't have any control over it? You're assuming that all separated parents don't get along and don't discuss things between themselves.

My ex and I are friendly and communicate about all things including clubs and childcare costs. Thankfully he's a decent sort and wouldn't want to see his child go without.

Kids do on average cost a similar amount. I didn’t send mine to clubs as I couldn’t afford it. I didn’t buy myself new clothes or anything for years, as I couldn’t afford it subsequent to a very long drawn out and expensive divorce.

100% of my income went on the family mainly the children.

You bet it would have been cheaper without the dc, I could have downsized my house so less mortgage. No cost of feeding, clothing, travel fare, toiletries, school related expenses, childcare because I work long hours (I paid childcare till the dc were 14), gas, electricity (I use less when on my own than when my dc are around) and gifts for friends as I couldn’t not send them to parties they were invited to, birthday and celebration gifts, this was the bare minimum, they’d have loved to have done extra clubs that cost money I couldn’t afford it.

I had my dc when I was married to their father knowing he had no other dc to pay for and that we could afford them. He knew he was going to be a violent abusive man he should not have got married and had dc with me. That’s on him.

Having had dc, he has financial responsibility towards his existing dc and if he chooses to have more (which he has), that’s his look out as to how he’ll afford them. I absolutely have pursued maintenance and my life has picked up and i can offer my dc a really good lifestyle. Im so glad I can as they bloody deserve it after the hell ex put us through.

I don’t think about how ex supports his family, that’s not my concern. Adults choose to go in to relationship with open eyes and have more dc with no financial back up if things don’t go to plan, then you tighten your belt and get on with it. You don’t penalise your dc for existing.

And as for the pp who’s dc don’t cost extra. Do you really have dc? Do you not clothe them, they don’t need to be ferried to school/childcare, you don’t need childcare at all around your working hours? They don’t need toiletries; shampoo, shower gel, Sanpro for girls, razors, deodorant etc? You don’t need extra for heating the house because you don’t mind being cold but can’t let your dc be cold, they don’t take extra baths requiring gas usage etc, no pocket money, no phone for your dc; mine had the most basic £5 a month brick so I could ensure they were safely at school or home etc

DC cost money. I bet ex rages that I’m using his money to go on fancy holidays. Nope I can afford fancy holidays on my own and CMS is divided between the dc because I can afford not to plough it into paying essential bills needed to survive. Fuck do I give a rats arse whether he can afford holidays or is sitting at home bored.