CSA for step child

[helmaria]

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

So an RP can decide to have another child and therefore have less money for the original child, but an NRP isn't allowed to? (Even though the amount by which the child is affected is likely to be less?)

I got tax credits and housing benefit to cover my bills. He moved in, I lost over half my income. I am financially dependent on him now because the government says he must support my children financially because they won't anymore. I am still incredibly uncomfortable being financially dependent but that's how it is.

Of course you lost money because you gain money by having a second income coming in. Why should the government pay out housing benefit when you have someone working presumably full time and yourself part time? The same goes for benefits to help cover bills.

You make the choice to have someone move in with you so therefor you make the choice to give up the extra money you received directly. No offence but if you are not comfortable with it then why did you move in together?

The government cannot maintain payments to a household which has acquired a second income in order for one half of the couple to remain financially independent.

And actually before any jumps down my throat I would like to make perfectly clear that I am a single mother. I am in receipt of tax credit and housing benefit and work 3 days a week.

I am not benefit bashing in the slightest.

I didn't read that as bashing at all,it's how assessment of household income works.

Balia yes each parent can make a decision for their own household and the child when they are in it,it's quite wrong to make it for someone else's.

I'm glad it didn't read as if it was. I have been accused of it on another thread when it was not the case in the slightest to just wanted to clarify.

Ah yes Balia - but it is the RPs income to decide with how they share their income on their children

My 2 DCs now get the sum total of shite all because NRP moved in with a woman with 3 DCS for whom she gets a large amount of monies from her Ex( How do I know - they were family friends, still speak to him and he has even shown me bank statements to disprove the crap being spouted!)

What speck of their DFs income they saw is about to disappear even further because she is now pregnant.

So please tell me why his financial responsibility to his own DCs should be affected by her 3 DCs - They now benefit from approx £2235 pcm of his income and his own flesh and blood can of course be clothed , fed, kept warm etc etc on £100 - do not get me started on, the fairness of it all. You tell me how 2 kids get brought up on £1100 per annum if I met that - £2200 is all it costs to bring up 2 DCs - one of whom is chronically sick and the other who went from a size 10 shoe to a 13.5 in one month!

Separated parents both experience changes all the time that impact on the financial welfare of their DCs though.

A NRP may be made redundant, or relocate, or have a baby - all of which impact on the financial support they can provide.

A RP may choose to reduce hours, get married, split from a stepparent - again, that impacts on the finances they have available to support the shared DC.

If the NRP has a new baby then I can see the need for a reduction - tough as it does feel to be the RP in that situation who sees not just a reduction in the NRP's direct spending on the child, but also a reduction to your own household income.

But in the case of step-children, I do think it's an area where the CSA are out of step with what most people - both RPs and NRPs - actually think is reasonable. The NRP's step children would usually be getting some child support from their own parents - both the one they live with and the one they don't. I can't see why the new stepparent's income should be assumed to support them and therefore not available to support their own children. With the exception of cases where the stepchildren are actually adopted by the NRP, I don't think they should affect the maintenance. I don't know anyone who arranges child support privately (without the involvement of CSA) who has made such a reduction. My DP certainly didn't when I moved in with him and I'd have been appauled if he had.

For two years, fiancé paid CM as if he was earning £30k a year more than he actually was, ex got nearly £70K of the equity in the house, gave her his car (£10k) and he took on all £20K of the marital debt. And why did he agree to that? Emotional abuse.

What an awful situation that emotional abuse has led to this situation. However unfortunate and unfair it is though am I right in thinking that this was a private agreement? He wasn't ever ordered to pay this amount? I am not minimising the effect EA can have but if payments were through choice (for want of a better word) then the Government would find it impossible to continue the level of money you received as a LP.

I appreciate how tough and stressful it must be living in a deficit every month. But I have to say that I don't see why anyone would enter themselves into a situation that would result in any child (from either side of a relationship) suffering, even if that means parents not always doing what they want. I am 100% a lone parent, no financial support from ExH and I can categorically say that I will never have someone move in with me if my child will be worse off (I do speak from experience on this). Obviously certain situations cannot be helped, for example - redundancy, ill health etc. But I wouldn't enter into a situation that would start out with my child losing out.

In saying all of that, I do not believe that NRP should pay over and above the CSA recommendations unless they are 1. In a position to do it and 2, Want to do it.

Should also put in there a 3. They are not actually helping to support the children in their household financially.

I guess my point is, I don't believe because you have further family it should lessen your responsibility to your first. If there is genuine hardship coming into question then paying more maintenance will create more problems obviously.

However I don't agree that someone should knowingly enter into a situation if it is going to lessen the support they are giving to their current children. With regards to the CSA amounts I was more aiming that toward people who have unintentionally ended up facing financial hardship.

Some woman really do end up with pittance from the NRP because they choose to support another family over their first children.

With regards to my 3rd point it was relating to a situation a PP had mentioned.

The Government believes that the adults in the household should support the children in that household, whether they are step children or not is irrelevant. It would be impractical for the state to suggest that one branch believes a step parent has financial responsibility to his/her DSC (which HMRC does) and another branch I.e. the CSA to assume no financial responsibility for resident DSC. If the DSC are not took into account by the CSA then neither should the DSP's income be took into account by HMRC.

And the most the CSA will calculate for is a 25% reduction in the applicable income if there are 3 or more children in the NRPs household.

The step parents income is not taken into account by the CSA, of course it is by hmrc. I don't know why I feel the way I do but it just feels different to me

I didn't say the stepparents income was took into account by the CSA which is fair because by the same token maintenance is not took into account as income by HMRC.

I know you didn't I was just rambling on a thought process that your post prompted but I can't explain

And just to clarify I don't actually agree with a NRP paying a reduction, I think everything should be done to keep maintenance at the same level although the state's reasoning behind the reduction is sound IMO. I also think the idea that step parents aren't financially responsible for resident DSC is spurious, any stepparent worth his or her salt will assume some financial responsibility for his or her DSC.

Serobin - someone has to support the children who lose state support by the 2nd income

So in your view, the ex wife of your new partner now has to support your children because he now supports your children.

I now get to support her children and their new one - where the heck do you think that is justified.

Theydeserve if your ex is only paying you £100 a month off the back of a salary of £2325 per month then you're being shafted. Someone somewhere has done their sums wrong.

This is why i think child support should be a fixed minimum amount decided by the govt in the same way they decide how much child benefit should be and not reduced for each new child. So lets say the amount decided is £20pw per child, if someone goes on to have four more children and isnt with the resident parent they will pay £100 per week. Might make some people think a bit more carefully about having lots of children if they knew they would have no choice about paying X amount per child. It would also mean residide t parents could be sure of what they were entitled to.