maintenance and childcare

[Paul5266]

in August of last year I was Parent with care, then we went to court my ex said she was moving to taunton and The judge decided she would be resident parent, two weeks after this my ex went to the CSA! In January she told me she was moving back to live with her BF, and that I could have the kids on the wednedsay night as well! I currently pay £407 a month, which after rent, food, bills, petrol (I work 50 miles from where i live) etc, I am left with £16 disposable income, I pay so much as My ex has lied to the CSA as to exactly how many nights i have the kids and despite reams of evidence they simply ask her and she say's no! My assessment was based on futuristic cnight calculations as historically i was seen as the parent! Anyway tonight she asked if i had put in place child care arrangement for after school on the wednesday As she says i should pay for this eventhough i do not know why childcare after school on a wednesday should differ to that of any other day! I feel that if I don't pay she will refuse me the wednesday night, however, if i do pay this will negate any financial benefit of having the children an extra night! I feel the only option is to go back to court ask for the court order to be removed and a new one put in place as she no longer lives 180 miles away, but no that this may upset the kids as she will tell them i am doing this, also I don't know where i would get the money to pay for the court fees! I can't get legsal aid as I earn to much and they do not take into account outgoings.... any advice warmly received! Please note i am a father that wnats to be part of his children's life and pay fairly for what they need!

I feel i have to go back to court not for the CSA, but because the current order is invalid and makes no sense at all, the wednesday night is a local agreement but feel she will use any excuse not to honour it and therefore a court order that states the wednesday will help, also I have missed my kids as i have not had them as much as i historically had them, so would also be seeking to have them on the sunday night as i am able to them to aschool in the morning, which was not possible when they lived in Taunton! As for work, even if they allowed me to work later some nights, getting back from london for 3pm would mean leaving work at 1:30pm which i would not be able to make up especially as i would effectively been arriving late on the Thursday morning! When i had the chidlren more, i was able to get to work later and leave earlier, that wasn't a problem then as i wasnt department head, we are currently going through restructuring and a potential merger, and i feel i cant be seen to take the mickey! tax credits can only be claimed by one parent, what does the acronym DC mean? I am not trying to become the RP as i fell my kids have gone through enough disturbance already, i just want them a little bit more, i am tired of having tears from them when they leave me!

I am sorry for confusing you smug! it is very difficult to put everything down in posts and make it seem sensible to others!

She is asking me to pay for the whole amount! It upsets me as i have not been able to take the kids anywhere that costs money, and free things are few and far between especially in bad weather! And i was worried before the court case last year that i would be seen as the fun parent if she were to get residence...

DC means dear children.

Tell her you're not gonna pay for childcare because she gets an allowance for it and it's not your responsiblity and that if she stops you from seeing the dc because of this then they will be the ones to suffer.

I'd recommend communicating only by e-mail, so you have a record of what exactly was agreed.

I do keep a calendar and have sent this to the CSA including agrred future dates!
I have no family and all of my friends work! so no help there! There is no after school care on a wednesday, every other day yes and she also wants me to find alternative care provision, which would mean a child minder! I have downloaded the local councils list of approved childminders.

I think you definitely need to go back to court. It's sad you can't do it amicably but it doesn't seem like she's listening. Some of the things you're mentioning aren't relevant e.g. her income isn't a matter for them to consider because it's based on the NRP's income. But you're having the children more overnights now and earning less than she claims so there are good grounds to alter it. Also can't you sort out maintenance through court rather than the CSA? The CSA are incompetent fuckers tbh (they seem to overcalculate for NRP who are making an effort, and just completely ignore ones who are crap and let them off the hook altogether- it's really messed up).

I communicate only by email and text, but she has a habit of asking questions such as this when she picks the kids up! perhaps i should just say i will answer that in an email later! Which i was doing when i thought i would get someone elses opinion as to whether i was being unreasonable! i dont think i am but if you get told you are selfish often enough you begin to believe it!

the courts wont alter a maintence that has gone through the CSA, she wont listen, she says that i am not paying enough. and doesnt believe me when i say i cant afford to pay this!

Since the divorce she has refused to speak to me directly about anything that she doesnt want to talk about , despite the reason for the divorce being her infidelity! She has hidden behind lawyers and civil servants!

I know they are relevant, but maintence should be means tested and income of both parties taken into consideration!

My appeal is not dependant on whether i have the children an extra night! My argument is that i have them over 104 nights already! the addition of the extra night would not take it beyond the threshold i should already be on!

sorry that should read are not relevant!

thankyou everyone for taking the time to answer my comment! It is nice to know that I am not alone out there and that I am able to ask others for help and opinions! good night and sleep well!

Paul

Paul what I meant was that you can apply for a variation when anything affects the maintenancne by mor ethan 5%. You can now prove you have had them 1 overnight a week on average this year (even though it will be more). SO I would think that you can apply for a variation on that basis as wel as continue the appeal.

Mind you this is the CSA we are talking about so anything goes!

As someone above mentioned you may find that www.nacsa.co.uk/ is of help to you at this point.

Hi Paul,

With regards to this... this is a main reason why people should avoid the CSA where possible. Many people on here will say use the CSA figure as a guideline and if it doesnt work then go to the CSA to enforce it. Indeed i believe gillybean2 is one of these posters who advocate wholly the CSA... however we are beginning to see the faults.

Other posters say that £500+ for rent is completely irresponsible and that there are much cheaper places of accommodation. I'm sure both you and i appreciate the real world situations.

One thing you need to remember is that the CSA has an unwritten motto:

"The PWC's word is God"

Thus the system is highly open to abuse as you are painfully finding out. I find it odd that the CSA are not backdating it. The CSA (and i've heard this first hand) have said that if contact orders are put in place they will backdate these from the date of the order and indeed these have been honoured.... but only because the PWC has agreed that this "overnight" contact is now taking place. In your situation i'd say you have to refer to the unwritten motto.

Try involving your MP.

Riakin - please don't put words in my mouth or make assumptions about me.
If you choose to draw conclusions on my views based on a few of my previous posts to specific questions that's your business. I am perfectly capable of saying what I think without you needing to supose or suggest it on my behalf.

And you don't need to imply to others that my advice isn't worth listening too on the assuption that I am an advocate of the CSA or that I support or recommend the CSA.
The CSA are a necessary evil for many lone parents. Some PWC have no choice but to go to them to get maintenance, and some NRP prefer to use them as they can prove they have paid and don't have to talk money with their ex or show their payslips etc to them.
I think we are all aware at how inept they can be, so I can well believe this poster is having problems with them. He's not the first and he won't be the last.

Paul has to deal with them and is asking for advice. I have tried to offer support and advice on how he could go about that.
At no point did I say I thought the CSA were right in their calculations and that he should just pay up. Quite the oposite in fact.

Lone parents is about help, support and advice, not about bashing those who offer help and support or about informing people incorrectly what you believe about other posters here.

Well, I feel that if the Wednesday is your day to have the children, and the CSA is pro-rata to allow for that day, then it is either your job to pay for childcare, or make yourself available to have the children.

However, the days you have the children aren't being pro-ratad so you are paying her maintenance for the Wednesday and caring for the children and if she had it her way, paying for childcare for after school as well... jesus - that's an expensive Wednesday!

With regards to the Sunday, I really feel your pain. We have DSD until 8pm on a Sunday yet because she stays at her Mum's (driven there by us having had an evening meal) it's classed as a day at her mum's.

You need to continue fighting this with CSA. At the end of the day you are responsible for paying the CSA guideline amount for your children. You are clearly not disputing this. If after paying the CSA guideline amount you can't afford your personal living expenses then it's your problem I'm afriad to say.
However, if you're being screwed for money that you don't owe, then you have every righ to dispute it.

Access and maintenace should e seperate but due to the current system, they just can't possibly be.

A non resident parent who has their children there often, has to shell out for a bedroom for each child, clothes, food, entertainment etc... it simply must be taken in to consideration. Otherwise what are you paying maintenace for... days when your children are with you

And yes, as wibble said, her income is a non-point. She gets 80% of her childcare paid plus other benefits because of her low income. Her low income is not your responsibility. Your responsibility is A, to be a present and caring father to your children and B, support them financially based on your own earnings.

I personally feel that the CSA does get it wrong but there is no across-the-board ideal solution and so they have come up with the 15% based on roughly how much of people's salaries they spend on their children. It is then reduced if that person cares for the children at all.

berkshirefem - It's not 80% any more. It has been reduced to 70%

Hi gillybean,

I am not putting words in your mouth.

The OP has stated that the reason for his financial situation lies at the feet of the CSA. You endorse the CSA's model of "tax" (in this instance 20%) do you not?

I have noticed plenty of other similar threads where you advise primarily mothers to take to the fathers the amounts the CSA say you should be paying. And alas, i'll say it again owed to this amount the CSA forces and enforces, we now have here a situation where someone is being pushed to the precipice. £16 a month for him to live a life.

Others have previously here called into disripute my previous figures relating to rent, food etc in relation to income. However again this is another instance in support of all my previous statements relating to financial income plus the sheer strains that the added 15%, 20% and 25% put on the household income, particularly for single occupants trying to make ends meet.

The OP is not disagreeing with paying in support of his children, like so many others he is asking circumstance to be taken into account, but again your endorsement of the "tax" brackets forces leaves no such room for negotiation nor opportunity to support oneself.

You may be trying to offer advice here however you must concede that the CSA do not listen, and there is the added fact that no matter how much pressure the CSA come under they will not become undone and the OP will still, i'm sorry to say Paul be paying £407 a month, with no reduction relating to overnight care... because it is all entirely dependant on the PWC's say and "her word is gospel". NACSA, Fairer CSA for All they are powerless because of the legislation.

The CSA is being used as a whipping stick, the OPs ex is denying overnight contact taking place, no doubt court orders won't curry favour against the word of the PWC.

Its not a case of me putting words in your mouth, far from it, rather history pertaining to your posts speaking for themselves.

I don't think you are being unreasonable and would recommend you go back to court to redefine the agreement as it will be worth it in the long run. Court for a defined court order shouldn't be expensive, just the costs of lodging the case as you really don't need a solicitor. Could anyone act as a Mckenzie friend for you? As you have regular contact with the children it should be a case where you get almost 50/50 care and courts are very much more supportive of this. Find out about the process from sites as suggested earlier, nowadays it's really common for fathers to self represented in court. I think it would be worth it as you can't struggle on in your current position and a defined court order will help you to be a better dad.

Re overnights - DH's ex did something similar and lied to the CSA about the overnights BUT we did have a court order so the CSA had to listen. At a minimum the CSA should ask the RP to sign a statement that confirms they are telling the truth and then define consequences if they are found out to be lying. At least that might deter some RPs from blatantly lying.

Fair enough gillybean I didn't know that. But I was making the point that her benefits are calculated on what she earns where as maintenance is calculated on what the NRP earns.

Two things confuse me:

1. How is your ex getting childcare paid for on WTC if she earns more than you? I am a teacher on UPS1 and I looked into upping my hours to above 16 hours and found I would hardly get any WTC or childcare expenses.

2. Why are you paying so much? My's ex's take home pay is just under £2000 and he pays less than you (for two kids). It should be based on net income.

My opinion would be that she should be paying the childcare. She is lucky to be getting a good amount of maintenance. I know that the maintenance I currently get from my ex is good and for that reason I do not expect anything extra from him.

Raikin I will say it again, even though you aren't listening and appear to have your own agenda on MN so ignore what you don't want to hear...

I do NOT endorse the CSA and believe them to be a bunch of incompetants. However they are a necessary evil for parents who can't agree. In this case the OP and his ex do not agree.

The CSA calculation is a starting point. As I have said before on other posts most NRP shouldn't pay the calculated amount because they will get a reduction for overnights. At 20% for 2 dc with two overnights it means Paul should only pay 14.25%. If he was having 3 overnights (assuming he has his dc for additional time in the holidays) he would be paying 11.5%.

If you he can't afford to live on what he has left then he has to look at his budget and shave and save where he can, or bring in extra income somehow. That's the reality of life whether you are a parent or not.

The OP's problems lie with his ex lying to the CSA. To me this is what he needs help with most here; in ensuring the CSA see and accept that and amend his calculation.

In Paul's case, once the CSA is sorted out properly his disposable income situation will be a bit better.
So instead of being so negative Raikin why not make some helpful and useful suggestions instead of telling him he's doomed and he has to lump it coz that's how the CSA are.
The CSA have to follow their rules and procedure. Most of us know they need to be 'helped' in getting it right, whether you be a PWC or a NRP.

Hopefully the appeal, and his MP will be able to resolve this for Paul. But it is necessary for him to get himself fully prepared by doing whatever it takes to ensure that the situation re the overnights, as he sees against how his ex portrays it, is provable at that appeal.

Paul sorry for the highjack - I won't respond to Raikin again on your thread, though I'm sure he will attempt to get me too by putting yet more words in my mouth.

Raikin I will say it again, even though you aren't listening and appear to have your own agenda on MN so ignore what you don't want to hear...

I do NOT endorse the CSA and believe them to be a bunch of incompetants. However they are a necessary evil for parents who can't agree. In this case the OP and his ex do not agree.

The CSA calculation is a starting point. As I have said before on other posts most NRP shouldn't pay the calculated amount because they will get a reduction for overnights. At 20% for 2 dc with two overnights it means Paul should only pay 14.25%. If he was having 3 overnights (assuming he has his dc for additional time in the holidays) he would be paying 11.5%.

If you he can't afford to live on what he has left then he has to look at his budget and shave and save where he can, or bring in extra income somehow. That's the reality of life whether you are a parent or not.

The OP's problems lie with his ex lying to the CSA. To me this is what he needs help with most here; in ensuring the CSA see and accept that and amend his calculation.

In Paul's case, once the CSA is sorted out properly his disposable income situation will be a bit better.
So instead of being so negative Raikin why not make some helpful and useful suggestions instead of telling him he's doomed and he has to lump it coz that's how the CSA are.
The CSA have to follow their rules and procedure. Most of us know they need to be 'helped' in getting it right, whether you be a PWC or a NRP.

Hopefully the appeal, and his MP will be able to resolve this for Paul. But it is necessary for him to get himself fully prepared by doing whatever it takes to ensure that the situation re the overnights, as he sees against how his ex portrays it, is provable at that appeal.

Paul sorry for the highjack - I won't respond to Raikin again on your thread, though I'm sure he will attempt to get me too by putting yet more words in my mouth.

Well the fact remains that you have said what you've said. And whether you respond or not is up to you and its no skin off my nose.

The OP's ex is disagreeing with the extra night and the CSA will back her up. They always have to take the word of the PWC. There are numerous cases of this i.e. some ex's making up figures that exp's earn etc. It isn't a case of helping the CSA as that just does not work and we both know it.

What i would suggest Paul is:

If you pay any laons that are joint and or any marital debts these can be factored into payments.

Gillybean has mentioned "shave and save". This may be possible but if you are paying £675 rent it may be very difficult.

You've also got the mix of having to travel so far to and from work. One such option in the short term is to look at selling your vehicle for a lower engine model if at all possible and providing your vehicle could be part exchanged for a straight swap.

Definately involve your MP as i said earlier, they will instruct the Parliamentary Ombudsman service to review your case and you will have someone from the Chester branch write to you to deal with your query within 28 days.

The letter to your MP should be factual and informative of the situation. Spell out your actions and also say how not being believed by the CSA has made you feel.

"If you he can't afford to live on what he has left then he has to look at his budget and shave and save where he can, or bring in extra income somehow. That's the reality of life whether you are a parent or not." This is very true and something that NRPs can overlook. The person with care can't choose whther to support the child or not so if you can't afford to pay the CSA amount then you need to step up and sort it out.
However - Paul is paying more than the CSA amount and that is why he's skint.

As for the childcare thing, I do beleive that if both parents are working then the childcare costs (or what is left over after child tax credits) should be split. i don't think it should come out of maintenance. For example, when my ex and I split, our DDs childcare fees were £800 a month! His maintenance was £200. As far as i'm concerne4d that was to pay for half of her costs... child care was very seperate. luckily fo me he agreed and paid half. But a lot of NRPs wont do this and the CSA should come up with some way to address this.

Just a quick one that i think we are all overlooking, myself included is that we are making these recommendations to cut costs to Paul... if the CSA weren't making such a pigs ear of things then we wouldn't need to be giving advice of "shave and save" and how he could look at doing it.

Thats the injustice about this situation, that because of the CSA's incompetence he is paying for their mistakes and i'd argue his ex-wifes bitterness because he isn't believed.

If the CSA got it right his £16 left a month would be over £100 would it not?

One other thing relating the OP of saying he cannot afford Court Fee's.

If you contact your local Court to see what they say with regards to you getting a remission of fee's based on your high outgoings. You need to be able to account for everything you say mind!