CSA for step child

[helmaria]

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

Ok that does put a different spin on things though. It just goes to show, situations are all different.

Can you transfer the CC balance to 0%? (And keep doing it when the 0% runs out? Or would it be possible to put all debt together and get a loan at a cheaper rate?

Serobin if you want a chat about financial options my other half can help...

That's a good idea. You could maybe get a free consultation with a financial advisor and see what they suggest?

I think any system is flawed as there will always be someone who finds a way work the system. It is the same for CSA and same for benefits system, same even for family courts system.

There are ex's on both sides that either do not go for the contact they should and those who try to limit contact of NRP. You only have to read this thread to see that there are to many people on boths sides - which in itself proves that the system rarely works for anyone.

It is unrealistic to say that contact and finances are a completely separate issue. Whilst I agree that children are not and should never be pay per view, the level of the contact will determine how much should be paid - this allows some RP the ability to want to restrict overnight access as they would be entitled to less money.

My ex only paid £3.75 per week as he had another daughter that he paid £65 per week to. He genuinely did not know of DD existence until AFTER I had given birth and her mom said she heard he had had another child and thought that may or may not be my childs brother. She had not said anything about it may be his daughter in past because she was not sure who dad was.

If my DH was not financially able to help support both me and DS then who would have - should I have just packed in work and stayed single as well as claim benefits?

Now my DH pays through CSA (because his ex was on IS when they split so there was no option to arrange private payments) but at the time she refused any overnight access and so CSA payment was based on this and still is. Yet we now have EW access and half holidays. CSA has never reviewed it and DH won't ask for review as he knows despite contact order ex will drag us back through courts AGAIN and whilst it would not stop contact it would be an expensive point roving exercise.

If my ex was forced to pay equal to DS and his DD then it would have been fine.

DH's ex was given 3 bed council house and got to be SAHM because DH supported the children and the government supported her.

DSC had laptop given to the household for the DSC because they were classed as on poverty line due to benefits but that was more than what we could have afforded for DS.

If DH lost his job I would still try an support DSC not because DH ex would expect it - even though she would but because I love them kids and would want to do everything that I could to support them.

If I was out of work I would expect my DH to want to support me and also my DS because he loves us.

Sanityseeker75 `It is unrealistic to say that contact and finances are a completely separate issue.'

No it isn't. Contact is either in the best interests of the child or it isn't. Otherwise you're suggesting `Contact is in the best interests of the child...but only if certain financial conditions are met'.

Lostdad - I think that I didn't make myself clear. It is unrealistic at the moment because CSA bases the amount paid on overnight contact and it is the CSA that give reductions on over nights spent at NRP. This in itself means that some NRP want more contact - even if by proxy just so that they can pay bare minimum. But also some RP reduce over nights because it means a reduction in their payments.

That doesn't mean I agree with either senarios

I've done the sums.

couthy's proposal places a value of less than £37 a week on regular contact between a DC and a child. The proposal that an involved Dad moves away from his DCs in order to secure f/t NMW employment makes a clear link and places a value on contact.

That is just so offensive to all supportive and involved Dads that it disgusts me. Not only that, those DCs who don't have supportive Dads are learning from the parent they do have that a missing father is no loss as long as he pays up. No wonder this problem is generational.

Where did I say that contact would be in any way derived from the minimum maintenance payments?

Lowering contact after a move to gain employment would be the NRP's CHOICE.

Just as the NRP I used to live with had to pay £60 a week to keep up regular contact with his DC's, when the RP moved away to secure employment. We just included that as an essential outgoing, before rent was even considered.

We had a 2-bed house that we split into a 3 bed.

At one point, my DSD1 was 11yo, and shared my 9yo DD's Box room, and my 3yo DSD2 shared the largest room in the house with my 3yo DS1 and my 2yo DS2.

We made the CHOICE that his maintenance and his contact costs came above us moving to a larger house.

It's all choices. Some are responsible, some aren't...

And I don't actually have an answer on how to get around the fact that SOME RP's contact-block as a way of not reducing their maintenance payments.

Unless the Court penalties were made far stricter for NOT following Court-Ordered Contact.

Which would probably be MY solution to that one. If the RP was not following a Contact Order, without good reason, it should stand to reason that the same punishments are meted out to them as are meted out to NRP's that refuse to pay maintenance, under my system...

Because it's obvious to me that if the NRP has contact, then they have to house and feed that DC for that day.

And I believe that marking the CSA reduction with overnights is ludicrous - an NRP can be feeding them breakfast, lunch and dinner, then taking them back to the RP, yet only gets a CSA reduction if the DC SLEEPS at their house.

THAT would change under my system too!

Any CSA reduction would be based on how many meals would be reasonable to have to feed those DC's whilst in the care of the NRP. The DC isn't eating when asleep!

I have been on just about ALL sides of this debate, over my life, and I don't want to make it unfair to any party involved - I would want to set out clear expectations on financial responsibilities AND contact arrangements and penalties for ALL parties involved.

(I have been the DC involved, I have been the NRPP, and I am also an RP. If it was possible to sit on the fence any more, between what is 'right' for each party involved, I'd be picking splinters out of my bum for the next 30 years. I can just see WHERE the system is failing ALL parties involved, and would aim to put that right...)

couthy You have been very clear. A NRP should relocate in order to find employment - even if that means moving away from the DCs.
There are only so many hours in each day. If a NRP moves away from their DCs in order to secure employment, they reduce the opportunity to play a meaningful role in the DCs life. It's no longer possible to go and watch a DCs football match after work; by the time the NRP has travelled, the game is over!

You are proposing a system that places a value on contact, which will cheat many DCs out of a Dad.

I can just see WHERE the system is failing ALL parties involved, and would aim to put that right...)

I agree completely - the only people that seem to truly benefit from the system are those that work for them, purley because it kees them in a job.

I think though that the system is flawed due to the people involved and whilst there is humans there will always be those that try to get one over on either the system or ex's

Any CSA reduction would be based on how many meals would be reasonable to have to feed those DC's whilst in the care of the NRP. The DC isn't eating when asleep!

Excellent idea

I'm not proposing a 600 mile move, just to the closest town. And if an RP is working, THEY can't go to a football match EITHER.

I once had to miss my DD's first dance show because I was unable to get time off work. Why should that be any different for an NRP?

If an RP can be compelled to work, why not an NRP?

I think this (the financial side of support) is part of an overall problem with how and what benefits/credits are paid.
I know i have said it before but i think some sort of system of officially taking £X (minimum amount needed ro raise a child in the uk decided by govt) from each parent per week. Perhaps when babies are registered at birth the parents' go into the 'child support system' and have £20 (example) per week deducted from income (whether that be salary or benefits) and paid into a 'child tax' account (like paying ordinary tax on wages- but for everyone with children regardless of income) then it or a portion gets paid back to the parents. Either to one designated parent if parents are together or separated but want that or paid to both parent in direct proportion to how much of the week that parent has the child.

Its just rough thinking and im no expert but i think it could work this way but would need to be part of an overall change in legislation to make parenting more equal and a change in how tax credits/ benefits work.

If an RP can be compelled to work, why not an NRP?

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?

Jumping to huge stereotyping assumptions here but regardless of the cause of a breakdown in marriage it is usually the mom that keeps DC and NRP is dad.

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.

Those that do not want that level of access then pay additional onto a sliding scale which increases with lack of contact.

Only exceptions are with DV or abuse and then contact is supervised if to take place at all at a contact centre but payment will be expected as above.

Have just read start of thread and am outraged for you. I would never take in or have another child if it meant not being able to afford the ones I already had. It should be the same for your ex.

I'm not proposing a 600 mile move, just to the closest town

Spoken like a true townie! Unemployment is highest in places like Cornwall, Norfolk, Cumbria; the nearest employment hubs are hours travel away!

In my area, all jobseekers are required to consider work within a 2 hour commuting distance. Despite job hunters considering a huge area, unemployment is one of the highest in the UK.
If you expect a NRP to move away beyond that area to find work then you will be expecting all contact between the DCs and their Dad to involve a greater than four hour return journey. You are proposing to rob DCs of one of their parents.

Nope, wasn't a 'townie' before I moved 600 miles to find employment...

...and you have proposed a system in which all unemployed NRP should do the same, regardless of their relationship with their DCs, in order to support their DCs financially to the sum of £37 a week.

I'm sorry your DCs have a crap relationship with their Dad (or at least, one that is worth so little). My DD's dad is worth his weight in gold - and he's a big bloke!

It is generally the case that people have to move where the work is, that's why so many families are scattered far and wide these days. My DP currently works away 5 days a week. It's shit. 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. Why shouldn't an NRP have to do whatever it takes to financially support the DC, even if that includes moving? Because they know that due to their NR status they can opt out of providing for them and someone else will pick up the tab.