CSA for step child

[helmaria]

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

Do you think it's high enough on my priorities to make you understand something that is blatantly obvious? If you don't get it that's it's wrong for NRP to lower their payment under any circumstances accept from unintentional financial hardship then you are beyond reproach as far as I am concerned sweetheart

Can you not detect tongue in cheek no?

Ok... I apologise for offending you by calling you a cunt.

As far as I can work out the only possible benefit to anybody from deducting CM from benefits is the apparent cost saving to the dwp/la

Back in the days when they did that and I was working at the dwp the cost of administrating it made it counter productive it that aside

I cannot work out any possible positive for the child

A salty treat... Just what is required

But that aside not it that aside

Your welcome to the one I found earlier I haven't chucked it in the bin yet

I spent a fucking fortune on my step children, any minuscule deduction from CSA was more than outweighed in the contribution I made to their lives, financial and otherwise.

It was cost prohibitive

It placed lone parents and children in very vulnerable situations

It gave the absent parent extreme levels of control over the RP's life

A huge huge amount of LP's were routinely left with nothing or very little for long stretches of time sometimes months.

A huge amount of nrp's intentionally mucked about with payments for there own amusement

Not sure what else you need to understand

Couthy I have to say I don't agree with your idea of cm being worked out at a flat rate and arrears being built up if a nrp is out of work. Surely as someone who is disabled and had disabled children you realise that some nrp are genuinely unable to work?

I know the current system is very flawed and I do think some aspects of it need to be changed, but at a very basic level I do think a % of someone's income is a fairer way to do things. If it was a flat rate then high earning nrp's would end up paying a tiny amount of their income and minimum wage earners a huge portion of theirs

That being said I do completely agree with there being more enforcement and especially in the case of self employed nrp, it baffles me that with all the technology and resources we have available in 2014 the CSA are completely unable to assess if the se earnings are genuine and reasonable and not being 'fiddled' to get out of paying cm. it's almost as if or exactly like once they realise its not a straightforward wage deduction situation they just can't be bothered and wash their hands of it

But you would be needaholiday you have posted on several other related thread and your post came across as goady. I don't feel the need for people to understand my situation, if they ask I will tell. If they are rude well... you know how I deal with that.

I'm still quite interested to know if you have thought about any possible positive for the children to use CM to bring their household income just up to benefit level as opposed to taking it over benefit level

Because I'm thinking quite hard and I can't think of even one

I concur with that assessment

I know you've had a hard time here needsaholiday and I can see why your question upset some people but I can also see why you asked

As explained when it used to be taken into account it caused a lot of problems and cost money to implement even though it was seen as a money saving exercise. It was awful for a lot of rp's (and children)

But you do sometimes hear cases of a rp claiming full benefits who is getting hundreds or thousands of pounds in cm. I'm sure that does happen but it is incredibly incredibly rare. Is it unfair that that happens? Yes quite probably but the alternate is countless other rp's and children being pushed into poverty for the sake of a handful who have it easy

As an example of why it doesn't work, at my dc school their is a mum who is on benefits and receives free school meals for her dc. When some parents found this out they were incensed because her ex is very well known locally and very very wealthy. And so they would say, 'that's disgusting why should those dc get fsm and reduced school trips when mine don't? Her ex is loaded, he should be paying' but the problem was yes, he should have paid for their dinners, and their school trips and their living costs and the tax payer shouldn't have. But he didn't. He didnt pay for any of that and she had no other way to pay. He should have been paying £££££, on paper she was due £££££ and so didnt need benefits, but he kept wriggling out of it. Had her benefits been reduced because she should have been getting cm those children would have had nothing. Cm is still badly enforced and (sometimes) way too easy to get out of paying

Yes, and disability would be covered by the process that is currently called a 'variation'. If an NRP was disabled, or became disabled, that would be one very GOOD reason to use the variation system - disability costs of the NRP should be borne in mind.

But also, surely that means that like an RP with disabilities, they would be relying on non existent DLA. Which isn't means tested anyway, and under 'my' system would be totally ignored for the purposes of maintenance, whether that is DLA for the RP, the NRP, the NRPP, the NRP's SDC, the NRP/RP shared DC, the NRPP's DC's.

So if the NRP was unable to work due to disability, then the NRP would be able to prove that not by using fucking ATOS either with medical records, which would suspend CM arrears from accruing, to be reassessed at the same frequency as disability benefits would be under my system - so if an NRP had a lifelong disability that prevented them from working, then their award for disability benefits would be the same, and their need to pay CM would be suspended.

Disabilities CAN'T be planned for - additional DC's CAN.

So a disabled nrp wouldn't have to pay any cm in your system as long as they could prove their disability? That seems fair

What about nrp's who are carers do you think they should be exempt too?

So what if the child the CM is for is disabled?