CSA for step child

[helmaria]

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

I know I personally wouldn't enter into a partnership or intentionally have more children if I knew it would have a detrimental affect on my already living, breathing child. I don't have the luxury of moving in with someone because I know that I couldn't depend on someone else to support my child in the way that I do. I would only consider it when I am in a financial position to support mine and my DDs well-being alone. At that point and only that point could I consider moving in together, of course the SP (for want of a better word) would also provide to a certain extent but if push came to shove I want the knowledge that I am financially secure. I also wouldn't support any partner of mine lowering CM payments unless he came across genuine unintentional financial hardship.

I do not see why a (some) NRP or even RP for that matter will willingly make choices which will affect their children without so much as a second thought. It isn't about the ex getting money which she could do without. It is the morality of supporting your children regardless.

I am not going to lie and say that our system is perfect, it is flawed however so are the people who enter into relationships without considering the financial implication on their children.

I feel the same meepmeepvroomvroom

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.

This a million times over.

How can it be right that the first children get less from their father when he gets a shiny new child - even if only a step child?

toffee isn't that the case for all oldest siblings though - there is less for them when a sibling comes along?

Are you advocating single-child families?

There is a difference between the two parents dealing with their own household ad what happens in it and making that choice for the other household

No frogstar that isnt what always happens to alm older children. Most parents when choosing to have another child dont think "well jimmy can do without eating on thursdays and fridays and only have a birthday every other year" they tend to think along the lines of what they will do without to fund a second or third child. Whereas when a NRP cuts maintenance they are pretty much deciding that the child/ren have to do without something to fun his step or new children. However the RP is probably the one who doesnt eat dinner on thursday rather than the child.

I realise i said his rather than their, apologies, it should say their. I know there are lot of men RPs as well as women.

sock I agree - and whether or not the NRHousehold choose to add to the family (that the DCs from the first marriage is a member of) is a matter for them alone.

The fact that the current system allows the NRP to reduce the financial support he provides for other DCs is a separate issue.

I am personally aware (as the recipient of CM via the CSA) that it is legally considered "unguarenteed". If it is not paid (even due to an error by the CSA) then there is no legal recourse for a RP to recover costs.

Given its fragility, the reliance on CM income, to the extent that a small % reduction could create hardship for the DCs, is unsustainable. Accident, illness, redundancy, emigration and other major life events for the NRP will create significantly greater reduction in income and potential financial ruin for the RP household.

Realistically though in most cases the amounts of money are very very small - on an income of £1000 a new child will equal roughly £5 per week reduction in maintenance and if the NRP qualifies for CTC as a result of having that resident child then the increase due to that extra income could actually offset or exceed the reduction. Now obviously there are people who's budget can't afford any reduction but we're not talking huge sums of money due to another child being born.

whether or not the NRHousehold choose to add to the family (that the DCs from the first marriage is a member of) is a matter for them alone.

At the cost of the RP losing out on maintenance for their child that is apart of this second family? It should be a matter for them alone but if it is affecting an entirely different household then should their first family not come into consideration in the first instance? It is irresponsible for a NRP to make a decision which will financially affect his child/ren and the household of his child poorly.

I am not saying that NRP shouldn't go on to have further children or even move in with someone who has children, I am saying that they shouldn't intentionally do it if it will have a negative financial affect on their current children.

If you cannot afford to support the children you already have at the same level that is deemed acceptable without more children, why the hell would you go on to have more?

The answer - because they can. As YoureBeingASillyBilly said if the amount was non negotiable you would probably find that NRP would be more sensible at deciding whether or not it was financially viable to have more children.

So Bruthas a RP parent can afford to lose what a NRP can't afford to pay? Is that logic not a bit backwards?

It might be different in Scotland but CMP are not counted as income for tax credits so the argument that you would receive it back through those means is redundant in my case.

No I have stated earlier that I believe that every step possible should be taken by the NRP to maintain payments despite more children being born. But the reality is that it's normally a very small amount of money anyway. Also the NRPs tax credits are counted as income when calculating maintenance so the increase in tax credits could increase the amount of maintenance they're expected to pay.

Bruthas I spoke to the CSA today, and the lady told me its only the WTC element that is included, and only if the nrp is the higher earner. IIRC that part doesnt increase when you have more children.
So when my ex and his dp had a baby my maintenance was reduced (again), but their income has actually increased.

I don't think the ctc should be included btw.

That must be a very very recent change in legislation then because at the start of the month the entire amount of CTC was counted as the NRPs income.

Who knows, my experience of the CSA is that they don't know their arse from their elbow, I'm sure if I rang tomorrow they'd tell me something else!

I haven't heard about any recent changes so might be worth checking out. The most recent legislation I read had the full amount of CTC and depending on who earned more in the NRPs relationship either all, half or none of the WTC. It could've changed but it's been like that some CSA2 was established.

bruthas

They gave me exactly the same info and the figures work out correctly with that explanation from my CSA tribunal (over 18 months ago)

I just had a look on the website (the lady at the CSA toldme that the tc stuff was clearly explained on there)
One page talks about universal credit.
The next says that tax credits are not included as income.
Oh yea, its clear, as clear as mud

Oh and the page after that says that 'certain tax credits' are included.

IneedAwittierNickname

Sounds bloody confusing. I think wrong information can be handed out by the CSA quite regularly from what people have said on previous threads.

Frogstar

Of course I am not advocating single child families. It is completely different when I couple live together with their children and finances are changed as more children come along than a child getting much less because daddy has left and taken up with someone who has their own child and/or they have a child together.

toffee What about when "Mummy throws Daddy out"?

(There are rather a lot of unpleasant assumptions on this thread).

Mummy throwing daddy out doesnt obligate him to having or taking on financial responsibility for another child!

Much the same as i didnt feel the uncontrollable urge to reproduce when exp left!