Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Lone parents

Use our Single Parent forum to speak to other parents raising a child alone.

Flip

1 2

Original poster

Can Exh say he cares for girlfriends children to get csa payments reduced?

41 replies

Lovedlots · 10/06/2011 10:24

Exh is now living with his girlfriend and her 2 children. Girlfriends exh pays maitainance for her 2 children. CSA have said exh can have his payments for my 3 children reduced due to living with his girlfriend and her 2 children. They take 20% off his wages for the 2 children then i get 25% of what is left. I can't believe it. It seem so unfair. Is this right?

OP posts:

TinnieWeeny · 11/06/2011 21:13

Sorry to confirm the original advice is accurate. On the whole the current CSA system is much better than historical ones. New partners children and reductions for overnight stays lead to more disputes on both money and contact issues. Parents should support their own children before others in my view - after all they knew their own children (usually) existed before they started their new relationship.

SardineQueen · 11/06/2011 21:28

Well exackerly tinnie.

Your children don't start needing less food just cos you get yourself a new partner

Wellnerfermind · 11/06/2011 21:45

I assumed it was brought in mainly as a reduction if the NRP had more children of his/her own.

It was simplified to say children in the NRPs house as it would have been complicated to Impliment.

whiteandnerdy · 12/06/2011 00:09

I'm sorry, I've been parenting a child from my ex-partners first marriage since he was 6, your ex is now responsible for another child, really does it matter to you that he has to be genetically linked to the child, REALLY? What about people who adopt and or foster, you really want to make the distinction between them and "proper parents" with "real families" (kind of leaves a bitter taste in my mouth tbh).

Lets just forget about all the posts we get on this site about single parents and the negative financial and social support impact that moving in with a new partner has eh?

SardineQueen · 12/06/2011 10:07

So really who is to say who should provide what support for which child? If it's not up to the biological father then it could be up to anyone really

Agreeing that children a man has fathered should have their money for food & essentials reduced because he gets a new girlfriend is short-sighted in the extreme, and rather selfish TBH.

SardineQueen · 12/06/2011 10:10

So you would happily withdraw money from children a man fathered, to give to children he didn't father, in addition to the father of those children supporting them. So one set of children gets a home with two parents, possibly two incomes, and 3 people supporting them. The other children get one person supporting them who may well be in poverty due to inability to work due to childcare costs and all that entails.

What a lovely person you are. And so terribly logical.

SardineQueen · 12/06/2011 10:12

I would also not look kindly on a man who did not feel such a responsibility to his children as he got a new girlfriend. It's all rather "I'm alright jack" isn't it. So he swans off to have his lovely new life and family and his ex is left skint and holding the babies. He sounds charming

Probably inadvisable to have children with a man with this POV TBH.

Riakin · 15/06/2011 16:24

Sapphirefling,

Neither actually. All im saying is that invariably a new partner will on some level contribute to the wellbeing of their new partners child just as on some level (financial of course) a new partner will contribute towards the PWC costs of that child.

If person A was paying £250.00 a month in child support and then had a baby with his or her new partner then technically i and others would expect that these costs would go down.

It doesn't make you a bad parent in any sense of the word, rather the reduction ensures that there is/has to be some element of fairness with regards to the upkeep of that new child. As a parent each and every child should be viewed the same. Seemingly some people on here are unwittingly unacknowledging that if a parents pay does not decrease they are saying that one child should be financially less supported than the other. Afterall can a parent who pays £250.00 maintenance then say well i've got to now pay £250.00 for this new life... of course not.

I'm sure that no parent would give £10 to one child and only £5 to the other... of course not.

In an extended thinking process consider:
If this were the case then why not ask the CSA to claim maintenance from your new partner for your child, afterall... they are technically contributing to the household that your child lives in...

Original poster

Lovedlots · 17/06/2011 17:22

So Riakin shouldn't the CSA wait until i have a new partner that contributes to the household?

OP posts:

marycorporate · 20/06/2011 17:23

It's ridiculous!! It should be reduced if he goes on to have more children with a new partner but if the children already exist then they are the responsibility of their own dad and mum.. it's a fucked up system.

AmberLeaf · 20/06/2011 17:43

Its unfair and it sucks bigtime.

whiteandnerdy its admirable that you are parenting your partners DCS BUT in anyones case that should not be detrimental to that persons biological children....you cant just 'start again' as if you never had your first DCs......oh actually under these rules you can

Very unfair and once again leaving it to the PWC to pick up the pieces.

AmberLeaf · 20/06/2011 17:45

What makes the OPs situation worse is that her exs dp is already being supported financially by her ex!

So those DCs get catered for financially twice [thrice?] over.

In taking advantage of that csa loophole your ex has no morals.

Meglet · 20/06/2011 17:51

It's a crap rule. AFAIK my XP's girlfriends kids don't live with them and as XP had a vasectomy it shouldn't be a problem for us.

Loving the idea that it's 99% certain I could get a new partner . Where will I find this man, in my almost women only office or are they hiding in my house somewhere? They might be in clubs and pubs but I don't get to go out as I'm looking after the children .

whyohwine · 20/06/2011 17:52

so can i clarify this?

Payments to OPs DC are reduced because OP's ex now lives with new gf and her 2 children (call these children A and B). The father (call him F) of A and B also make payments to them (quite rightly). Are F's payments to A and B reduced because they are now lving with someone else (OP's ex) who is also contributing to them in some way? If not, surely OP's DC are essentially losing money to A and B. How is that fair?

AmberLeaf · 20/06/2011 17:56

Fs payments would NOT be reduced.

It stinks doesnt it?

macdoodle · 20/06/2011 22:55

Its fecking unfair of course it is. There is another thread about how the RP shouldnt expect her XH's new wife's income to be taken into account, but if the new wife had her own children, then the RP's payments would be reduced.
FFS on what planet is that fair or right, oh of course we are talking about the CSA so when did fair and right come into it.

Flip

1 2