CSA for step child

[helmaria]

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

Meep, DHs DS is 10, and his mums threats of violence if he sees his dad, coupled with his witnessing his mums violence toward his older DSis when she did have contact is enough for him to tell CAFCASS that he's not bothered whether he sees his Dad or not. At best, the order will be discharged; more likely, DHs previous insistence that the order should be followed (by turning up despite being told DS would no be available) will lead to a "no direct contact order".

If a RP doesn't care about the emotional damage they do to their DCs, preventing contact between them and their Dad is very, very simple. I could have done it with my DD; I look back and can see the opportunities I had.

The case recently highlighted in the media exemplifies it - even the judge in that case agreed that the court system has let the family down but that the mothers "implacable hostility" to contact led him to issue a "no contact order".
From my understanding, Barristers see cases like this on s regular basis.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/legal_matters/1983245-Legal-loophole-can-anything-be-done

Not sure the link will work in an app - but here goes:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/legal_matters/1983245-Legal-loophole-can-anything-be-done?

Sock - when a RP uses the court system to validate their own position, a NRP can only hang in tight while the process evolves around them.

IME that is not accurate and nor is it the experience of any person who works in the same field as me

I disagree, Barristers don't see cases like that all that regularly at all.

They will see plenty of women trying to obstruct contact but the law is generally in favour of the NRP obtaining contact of some kind. Unfortunately it is more often seen that contact orders will be obtained when it is not in the childs best interests.

I reiterate what I said before. Contact can be stopped quite easily by the RP prior to a contact order being issued, they can also easily do this through the court process and even some women will not follow a court order once it has been issued resulting in it going back to court if the NRP wants it to. I stand by what I said, it is very difficult to get a no contact order granted by a court in this country. It obviously does happen and in the majority of cases it is issued because I direct threat is posed to the child or the RP because of the NRP.

Sock - would you be prepared to share what you mean by inaccurate on my other thread? If there has been procedural irregularities, then DH needs to address those.

Sorry OP - complete hijack

Meep - and occasionally when the NRP is described as "beyond reproach" too!

www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed116553

Yes occasionally. Very occasionally, a case like that is not the norm. You seem to be preempting the worst possible and quite probably the most unlikely outcome and I can't understand why.

Meep - because thats the legal advice DH has been given has been given. But hey - what do they know? I'll suggest he ignores it and continues to place his trust in the system - just like RP's can with the CSA!

Now there isn't really any need for that but hey I don't get a penny from my DDs Dad anyway so what do I care.

If that is the advice he has been given I suggest he get's a better solicitor.

Best of luck Frog it is a terrible situation for your DP to be in but from what you have said he is not getting the best legal advice.

He can't afford a solicitor - we couldn't even afford the court fees to apply to enforce the order without defaulting on mortgage/utilities, so he didn't - his ex helpfully applied to court instead.

There are, fortunately, solicitors and barristers who do pro-bono work for family-focused charities; they may not, in your opinion, be giving very good advice, but that's all he's got access to.

I accept that there are some crap dads and some crap mums, and the system fails the DCs of these parents.
I just don't understand the motivation of some posters wanting to 'prove' that there are more deadbeat dads and somehow that gives mums who are struggling extra justification to slag off dads.

Every thread like this ends up the same way "well, there are more of 'us' than you" by LMums who want to paint the majority of Dads as irresponsible if they dare to abide by the system they find themselves in. If its that prevalent, why hasn't MNHQ had teeshirts printed up supporting that cause?

A lot of highstreet solicitors also do a free hours consultation. It would be enough time to get a little advice. He could go to a couple of different ones.

I don't think posters are trying to prove there are more deadbeat NRP (not Dad's) than there are good NRP. I haven't seen that written anywhere. The thread was related to CSA reductions and payments. I along with several others don't agree this should be the case. Others disagree fair enough. As for justification to slag off NRP, I don't do that for all NRP. Some step up and do their bit and often more than they are required, others don't. I have every right to slag off the one's the don't because I am on the other end of the spectrum from men (in my case) like that.

I don't think I have once implied that there are more of us than you. What I have said rigidly throughout this thread is that I have zero respect for people who make decisions which will negatively affect the existing children from a previous relationship. I am all for blended families if it is feasible.

I have geared alot of my replies with my own personal circumstances but have made this clear.

??? serobin ???

IMO, and I've posted this before, maintenance should be calculated at a MINIMUM of the usual percentage from NMW. And it should continue to accrue AT THAT RATE even if the NRP is unemployed.

And maintenance shouldn't be lowered because an NRP chooses to move in with someone who has existing DC's, OR because they choose to have further DC's.

If they choose to have further DC's or move in with someone with existing DC's, then they need to budget for exactly the same maintenance costs as they did before having further DC's or moving in with someone with existing DC's.

It's NOT saying that the NRP can't move forwards and move in with someone who already has DC's OR that the NRP can't have further DC's.

What it IS saying is that BEFORE they choose to do so, they should be going into that decision with the full knowledge that their maintenance costs will have to be considered BEFORE any other costs.

If it was law that this was the case, then they would have no choice but to consider this first, they would have no choice about maintenance accruing too.

The ONLY situation in which an NRP should be able to have a cessation of maintenance due is if they are meeting the exact same criteria in the event of a redundancy or job loss as somebody claiming Income-Based JSA. If they can prove every 2 weeks that they are meeting the job search criteria, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY CLAIM JSA OR NOT, then the maintenance for that 2-week period should be written off.

That way, maintenance arrears ONLY don't accrue at a basic level based on NMW (rather than a derisory £5 / £7 a week) in the case of someone who has GENUINELY been made redundant, and has GENUINELY fulfilled the job search criteria that would be relevant to JSA, for up to 12 months. After that, no further variations, meaning that some NRP's have to take a job that they feel is 'beneath them' in order to support an existing DC to a realistic basic level.

If the levels were set at a BASIC amount of the general percentage (based on amount of DC's) based on NMW, there would be a lot less 'deadbeat dad's' around. And that INCLUDES SE NRP's regardless of their ACTUAL income, being forced to make at least a minimum payment of X% of NMW would prevent the whole issue around SE NRP's from shirking their financial responsibilities towards their existing DC's.

It is not that under this system, an NRP would be unable to move forward by having more DC's, or moving in with someone with DC's, but that they would be unable to do that WITHOUT ensuring that their maintenance payments were accounted for before any other financial considerations in those decisions.

And FGS get the CSA to use the powers it already has, to confiscate passports and driving licences, to send out bailiffs, to put a charging order on a house, and even imprisonment of non-paying NRP's.

I could overhaul the CSA system in just two weeks, to prevent the majority of misuses of it.

National Campaign for CouthyMow to be elected as top dog at the CSA?

I agree 100% with everything you said in the above post.

I vote Couthy for supreme ruler of thr world

MeepMeepVrooooom - `I stand by what I said, it is very difficult to get a no contact order granted by a court in this country'

If you're relying on official stats I'm sure you appreciate that contact' can mean being allowed to send your child one Christmas card a year'?

And regarding enforcement...what Serobin says.

couthy We've had this debate before - I don't disagree with your position until that is, you assert that it is possible for everyone to find a f/t NMW job within 12 months.

That is unrealistic. And if you expect NRP to move away from their DCs in order to achieve it (which is what you proposed my DH should do), then you are only reinforcing my opinion that some RP view their DCs dad as a sperm donor and wallet, nothing more. Insisting that an unemployed dad who picks his DCs up from school every day, reads with them, does their homework with them, shared dinner several times a week should reduce his involvement in their lives to EOW in order to secure a NMW job is as insulting to those children as those Dads who cheat the system and pay nothing out of the earnings they receive. Children benefit from having a Dad in their life.

Some of the areas with the highest level of unemployment, and lowest aspirations for DCs (resulting in poverty traps) are remote/rural with limited/expensive transport links over expanses of water. Your proposal completely fails to provide for the DCs in those communities - consigning them to a life of poverty with fragmented and fractured relationships with their parents.

Perhaps a more effective system would be for the work requirement to be 'transferable' - so in situations like the one I describe above, the requirement for the NRP to pay CM at a minimum rate is removed if the DCs RP is earning?

What is NMW?

National minimum wage

Insisting that an unemployed dad who picks his DCs up from school every day, reads with them, does their homework with them, shared dinner several times a week should reduce his involvement in their lives to EOW in order to secure a NMW job is as insulting to those children as those Dads who cheat the system and pay nothing out of the earnings they receive. Children benefit from having a Dad in their life.

I'm not so sure about this. When I was growing up I didn't get to see an awful lot of my Dad because he was away working. He did this to provide financially for his family. I've got the utmost respect for my DF for doing this. Obviously children in most circumstances benefit from having both parents around however there are alot of families that are still together who don't have that because of work. I know women who have had to do similar too by working nights. Only really spending one full day at the weekend with them and passing like ships in the night the rest of the time.

lostdad I am not and never have denied that this happens to some NRP and it is desperately sad if they genuinely want contact. But it's still not the norm. I am going by what I have personally seen having previously worked in an environment where these types of cases are seen and discussed almost daily.

Frog, nothing could be further than the truth - I have one DC whose Father only decided to be involved when they were 12, having had no prior financial OR emotional involvement through HIS CHOICE. They now spend plenty of time together, as much as is feasible given the 600 mike distance between them, despite him only paying £12.50 a week maintenance.

My second DC sees HIS dad around 3 evenings a week, despite the fact that his dad has steadfastly refused to work in the 11 years since DS1 was 9mo, and has NEVER paid a penny in maintenance.

If my DD's father can keep up with contact now he is ready to, despite a 600 mile distance between them, I see no issue with an NRP (or an RP for that matter) moving to get a job. Yes, the logistics might be more difficult, yes, transport costs might be greater, but it CAN be done.

And I'm NOT saying that they HAVE to get an NMW job within 12 months - just that maintenance arrears will start to accrue after 12 months of genuine unemployment.

A lot of the time, people that say that they "can't get a job in 12 months" are saying that because they can't get a job with their previous salary within 12 months. I'm willing to accept that's not always the case, but if you live rurally and that's limiting your employment opportunities, then move to a town to increase them.

If you are in London and can't get a job, half of the Country is only an hour away by train, so even moving out of London isn't going to make contact that arduous.

But NOT every NRP (and I never said "Dad's" in place of NRP - that's YOUR construct - my NRP was my Mum...) is willing to do the pick ups, and be as involved with their DC 's even when unemployed.

And why should THAT take the place of financially supporting their DC's? An RP with school age DC's is expected to be seeking FT employment, so why should that be ANY different for NRP's?

What's good for the goose is good for the Gander - if it is expected that an RP with school age DC's is not unemployed, is actively seeking FT work, why should the NRP get to do all the 'nice' bits of parenting whilst the RP slogs their guts out in an NMW job to financially support their DC's??!!