CSA for step child

[helmaria]

Now my ex has a step child living with him, does this lessen my csa payments?

basgetti You and your DCs miss your DH. You manage as a family to deal with the separations in a way that you all agree on.

What is the likelihood of that happening in the RP household? Not only would a DC lose the day to day contact with Dad, they'd also lose contact with step and half siblings (unless you are suggesting that the DC continues to have contact with their stepmum in the absence of their Dad) and quite possibly, the RP will lose out on income because Dads not there two nights a week so she can work. Oh, but that's ok, because she'll get some CM money.

Of course there are circumstances in which Couthys proposal would benefit DCs - but there are lots for which it won't. couthy has presented it as a magic fix but it is no better than the current system!.

So who provides for the DCs then Frogs? And in the absence of CM the RP themselves may have to move away for better job prospects if they have the sole financial burden so the NRP may find their relationship with the DCs distanced anyway. It is a shame that CM is seen by some as optional, and only to be paid if doing so doesn't effect quality of life in other ways. I'm sure there are many RPs on these boards who hate having to juggle school runs, work and childcare, who hate the fact that they miss the school play and parents evening. But they have no CHOICE because DCs need to have clothes, food and a roof over their head. The point is that NRPs don't have the same burden. If they chose not to work, for any reason, they have no liability when it comes to providing for their DCs. How is that fair?

Does that mean it goes both ways if a RP chooses to stay at home because CM, housing benefit,CT benefit and IS - the NRP can then say well it works for you so I will take over being RP and SAH and you can have EOW access instead. Not sure how many moms would agree to that?

Of course it wouldn't mean a NRP could take over being RP and SAH just because they decide it. They are the NRP and as unfair as some may find it they do not have the power to remove care from the resident parent. To even suggest (as tongue in cheek as it may be) that is utterly ridiculous. The majority of resident parents don't have the majority care of their children for the financial benefit.

It's no longer possible to go and watch a DCs football match after work; by the time the NRP has traveled, the game is over!

Well quite, a game of football is more important that actually putting clothes on your childs back and food in their mouths. Fascinating! Why has this never been used as an argument before? Be realistic, alot of RP have to miss out on certain things in their DCs life because they have to work. As a side note this is the exact reason that most school teams play on a Saturday (when the majority of parents are available)

In fact maybe the only fair system is one in which at the breakdown of any relationship each parent has 50:50 care and is not responsible for paying the other CM.

Even in 50:50 care scenarios it's quite often still the case that the responsibility of paying for the things like school uniform, shoes, clothes etc falls on one parent. This would never work where the relationship between the two parents wasn't amicable. It would still be a constant battle for alot of parents to get the other to step up. Also in situations like this people who have left relationship because of abuse such as emotional abuse and financial abuse which can both be very hard to prove at times would mean that even after leaving a relationship the ExP responsible for the abuse would find it very easy to continue.

We miss him terribly, but we live in one of those high areas of unemployment that Frogs described and needs must so we suck it up.

^^ This. It's hard, it's shit but as the poster says they suck it up because they have financial commitments that need met regardless.

How about both parents are equally accountable for financial support, rather than placing day to day responsibility with one parent, whose own financial contribution (or lack of) towards their DCs is unaccountable by anyone by themselves?

Why should the NRP be accountable in law for providing financial support to a pre-determined value, whereas the RP can choose what their own financial contribution will be, and furthermore, there are absolutely no assurances that the monies paid by the NRP will ever benefit the DCs at all.

How else do you think the kids are fed, clothes, have food, a roof over their head, heating, electric, hot water for a bath, a bed, toys? Does that stuff just come by magic?

Not to mention nappies, milk, wipes and the rest

But who decides who will be the NRP. Not all NRPs are in that position through choice. Surely 50:50 shared care is a fairer system? That way financial responsibility is equal also a children get to have a meaningful relationship with both parents.

On what planet are RPs unaccountable for how they provide for their children? Or did I just dream that LPs are forced onto JSA on their child's 5th birthday and ordered to look for work up to 2 hours away, under threat of sanctions and regardless of the practical implications.

The NRP has more FAR more flexibility than the RP when it comes to financial support. They can disappear off the face of the earth, refuse to work if they have a partner willing to support them, go self employed and muddy the waters or work out the CSA percentages for any job they may take.

If many cases an NRP can, perfectly legally, avoid feeding their children. If a RP does this they will be charged will neglect. When it comes to financial liability there is no comparison.

Oh and do you really think the paltry CSA rates are enough to ensure that the RP can 'abuse' the CM and not allow it to benefit the DC?

whereas the RP can choose what their own financial contribution will be,

Umm, ok. If you say so. I mean, I could stop paying the rent/gas/electric, or not buy food and clothes for the dc but I think I'd quite quickly (ans rightly so) lose custody of my children.

Or I could continue spending nearly all of my income on the things that they need, while their dad buys a nice new motorbike and doesn't contribute towards anything they need - imo the bag of his dss hand ne downs that he gave ne recently don't count. (nowt wrong with hand me downs, but bobbly faded jogging bottoms and a mountain of shapless worn t shirts aren't much use when ds needs winter boots)

But who decides who will be the NRP Statistically the NRP is the father. While within a martial home the mother is granted maternity leave and up until recently there was no option to transfer this they tend to be the ones in majority cases that work part time. Therefore they are the parent who provides the majority care and in the event of a split the child is deemed better off with the parent who has provided majority care.

In my case I was on maternity leave when I left my ExH but even if I had been working I would have decided where my daughter lived and that would be with me. If my ExH had actually been a half decent Father he could have gone for 50:50 custody which is becoming alot more common but he could not have stopped me from leaving with my child.

Most woman can make the decision to leave the home with their child and nobody would question them. It is then up to the two parents to arrange access, if it cannot be agreed upon then mediation should be done and then court if one party still isn't happy.

With regards to a RP finances not being looked at, I'm not so sure. I regularly have to send my bank statements off to various agencies. Housing Benefit teams, Tax Credit Teams. I think they will be checking.

I spend the tax credits on gin and shoes.

Sssssh Monet. You are giving away our secrets no one needs to know, wine and handbags here

Actually don't know what I'm talking about, I don't even get maintenance from my Ex. I have to fund my wine and handbag addiction myself

And I just realise you said tax credits, I do get them. puts the wine down

Most woman can make the decision to leave the home with their child and nobody would question them Exactly my point
It is then up to the two parents to arrange access But more often than not, this is not that straight forward.
if it cannot be agreed upon then mediation should be done and then court
Never as easy as that though is it and more money that could have been better spent supporting the children. Especially as until recently RP on benefits could drag out lengthy court processes on legal aid where NRP struggled to pay for two homes, legal fees etc.

I know there are deadbeat NRP the same as RP who use kids as a weapon and an income. I guess its all us that aren't the extreme of either that pay the price of those who don't have kids best interests in mind

Which would encourage single parents to stay as single parents who are then blamed for being a drain on the state. If the partner stays over too many nights a week then that can impact on benefits they receive

Couldn't not point out that this is not true, it is a myth that a single claimant is only allowed overnight guests a certain amount of days.

You can have a house guest for 6 months if you want and providing they are not meeting the criteria to be "living with" you and are maintaining there own property you are doing nothing wrong.

frog couthy has not said you can only have contact if you pay £37, you repeatedly saying she's putting a monetary value on contact implies she has,that's a bit off really.

And did you seriously say that a NRP who collects their child from school should not have to get a job? Because that's what you appeared to be saying.

Sanity how come one child got £65 and one less than £4?

Sorry Sanity I don't see what your point is?

You are right that it isn't straight forward but if you are a good parent you will use every last piece of will power you have to resolve the situation. If you still can't reach a decision then the only option is mediation and court. It may be hard, it may be time consuming, it may cost money (alot of solicitors set up credit agreements, I'm still paying of my divorce at £40p/m). You can also represent yourself, solicitors offer free consultations, someone mentioned in a PP about a charities that offer their legal services and then there is also CAB. I don't care if it was my last penny and I don't care if I had to not eat for certain days of the week, or take on an evening job (if I was a NRP) I would fight tooth and nail for my daughter and nothing and nobody would ever stop me. Pure and simple.

Why is it when anyone suggests that RP could be held accountable the 'handbag, gin, gigalo' flippancy begins?

Can this issue never be debated seriously?

Are all RP so virtuous that greater scrutiny is unnecessary? Or, are there some RP who aren't as committed to their DCs wellbeing and consider their DCs maintenance as money for themselves?

Frog I will copy and paste my last two posts to you...

How else do you think the kids are fed, clothes, have food, a roof over their head, heating, electric, hot water for a bath, a bed, toys? Does that stuff just come by magic? Not to mention nappies, milk, wipes and the rest

Would you care to answer? The reason the flippancy comes out is because you are grossly ignorant to think that children don't cost money on the RPs side. There are RP who don't spend what they should but that will get picked up on by nursery/school etc. If I started to send my DD into nursery with less than adequate food, clothes too small for her, shoe's that didn't fit you could bet your ass SS would be at my door pretty sharp.

People don't need to look at my bank statement to see my daughter is happy, healthy and well provided for.

If a RP does not do the things expected like feeding and maintaining a house for them they are held accountable by children's services.

Yet I've known a NRP who openly in court stated he would not provide meals for his dc because he shouldn't have to NOT be refused a regular overnight contact order.

Yet I've known a NRP who openly in court stated he would not provide meals for his dc because he shouldn't have to NOT be refused a regular overnight contact order.

sock

Couthy has proposed that all NRP pay CM at a rate not less than f/t NMW.

She has proposed that all unemployed NRP should be compelled to relocate to another area if they are unable to secure employment within 12 months through their local Jobcentre (which will have included all jobs within 2 hours commuting distance).

This will place NRP in a position where they work/live over 2 hours travel from their current home - and will likely significantly increase the distance to their DCs home as well.

A DC who currently has frequent, day-to-day contact with their NRP will have that contact significantly reduced when the NRP is compelled to relocate - a relocation that is required in order to support the DC to the tune of £37 a week (assuming a f/t NMW).

That places a value on day-to-day involvement of a NRP - its loss is acceptable (in couthys proposal) in return for the financial benefit.

It will work for some - just like the current system does. It won't work for all, which is what couthy has claimed.

meep I know DCs cost money, what I'm wondering is why so many RP's are resistant to a system that holds them to account for meeting those costs?

I operate in a culture where monies given for a specific purpose have to be accounted for. Why not apply that to RP's, too?

So not much different to when any other parent gets a job then.

If being a RP is not enough to exempt you from seeking employment and the steps you are required to take to do that (of a school age child)

Then why the actual hell should being a NRP allow you to avoid it just because your active?