Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Lone parents

Use our Single Parent forum to speak to other parents raising a child alone.

Original poster

CSA Question

83 replies

AKP79 · 28/10/2014 11:30

Need an explanation on something that I'm finding quite frustrating... If my ex partner is now living with and engaged to someone else who has two children from a previous marriage, why are they taken into consideration when applying through the CSA? His new partner is financially very well off and her ex partner pays over the odds for the children including covering private school fees etc. My ex partner contributes very little to her mortgage etc so outgoings aren't huge for him. I find it very confusing that her children have to be considered, despite the fact they are provided for very well, yet her financial position isn't. Am I missing something?

OP posts:
IneedAwittierNickname · 28/10/2014 11:32

I don't understand it either.

acharmofgoldfinches · 28/10/2014 11:58

it's just the way CSA work unfortunately.

we are on the other side of that equation, my DP's XP earns more than both of us put together, but he has to hand over a significant proportion of his salary in maintenance, which leaves us very short of money and me having to work extra hours to cover a fairly no-frills life...I am basically paying both mortgages Angry whilst she swans about in designer jeans...

No problem AT ALL with him maintaining his kids, that's only right, but as frustrated as you are that actual income is not taken into account.

Original poster
AKP79 · 28/10/2014 12:12

It's completely crazy - one rule fits all approach doesn't work.

My main source of confusion is the fact that my ex partner's finance's children are considered before calculating his contribution for his biological child (the one he planned and created). The CSA deduct 14% from my XPs gross income before our son's maintenance is calculated, in order to create provisions for children who are provided for by their mother and biological father.

I feel like I'm being really thick because I just can't get my head around this.

OP posts:
acharmofgoldfinches · 28/10/2014 12:39

you're not being really thick, it doesn't make any sense at all. it's just like that. and unfortunately there is nothing you/we can do about it Sad

ElliotLovesGrub · 28/10/2014 12:49

They have to treat it as a family unit because they assume a man living with a woman and her children will actually integrate into the family and share finances (like a family who are all biologically related is likely to). It'd be hard for the CSA to examine down to the penny as to whether a man is a cock lodger or not!

WakeyCakey45 · 28/10/2014 14:09

I find it very confusing that her children have to be considered, despite the fact they are provided for very well, yet her financial position isn't. Am I missing something?

Your ex's income is considered when his DP applies for benefits and tax credits; there is an expectation by the state that a proportion of his income supports her DCs.

But, any working tax credit that his household receives is assessed as his income for the purposes of the CSA payments to you (unless she earns more than him).

I think the system is bonkers; there are thousands of DCs who now miss out on child benefit, for instance, because their mum is living with, or married to, a man who earns over the financial threshold for CB.

Whatever21 · 28/10/2014 15:12

acharmofgold - your situation is completely different and what you are proposing offensive.

Irrelevant what the mother earns - the father of the children is responsible for paying a wedge of his salary ( in your case assessed by the CSA - so am sure it does make him destitute) to maintainhis children

You are not paying both mortgages - he is paying for his kids and so he should.

What the OP is objecting to - is her DCs losing out because his new partner has DCs - this is not the same as you are describing.

He had them, he pays for them - regardless of circumstances

Original poster
AKP79 · 28/10/2014 15:44

I do struggle to see how any absent parent can be out of pocket when the CSA only take 12% out of their gross income for the first child and then in further increments after that. 12% seems very lean when you factor in the cost of raising a child, especially if that child is at nursery and in my case (which I am sure is similar or worse for many others) has severe allergies etc etc.

It really has floored me. I can see that it would be an absolute minefield to treat each case individually, but I think a few additional filters in the process wouldn't go amiss and would ensure that those absent parents who aren't behaving responsibly are held accountable for the maintenance of their own children who ultimately should be their first priority.

OP posts:
HeadDoctor · 28/10/2014 16:07

The system just isn't fair all round really. I am worse of as a wife of a man who pays maintenance than I was when I was on my own and receiving state support. I also don't think it's fair that the state doesn't include maintenance when considering benefits and tax credits. Why should a household with a single parent receiving £500pm in maintenance receive the same state support as a household receiving CM of £5/week?

ElliotLovesGrub · 28/10/2014 16:12

head, how are you worse off? Do you and your new partner keep finances separate?

It's very fair that maintenance isn't factored in. Can you imagine how much of a hold ex partners would have over the mother of their child if they knew they could say they would pay and then "forget" one week and have the mother struggle?

HeadDoctor · 28/10/2014 16:23

I'm worse off because the state assumes DH can support me. With the costs of maintenance and having to have a bigger house so that DSC can stay 4 nights a month, and activities for them and clothes and so on and so on, we are worse off. ExW manages to dress children in Ted Baker and Joules and go on holiday at least 3 times a year. She's on income support, doesn't have to work as she has a child under 5.

My children get supermarket clothes, we haven't been on holiday in years, I have to work even though I have a child under 6 months.

The divorce paperwork was clear, once DH has paid her maintenance her monthly income is higher than ours even though she's on benefits and DH falls into the 40% tax bracket. She got the entire marital assets (how many people get a 100/0% split? DH must have had a rubbish solicitor!). Once he's paid off the credit cards she ran up in his name (his own stupid fault), we don't even make ends meet.

If I left my DH, I wouldn't have to work, I'd receive tax credits again and would probably be able to afford a holiday. It's almost a shame I love him so much Wink

Maybe the CSA should make the assessment for how much the NRP pays and make a guaranteed payment to the RP and then the onus is on the CSA to collect from the NRP to cover that. I bet they'd be more effective in collecting payments then!

ElliotLovesGrub · 28/10/2014 17:02

Oh, I was assuming you worked not that your dh was having to support the whole household plus his other children. That makes sense but surely something you'll have known prior to moving in. I find it a bit odd to complain about her not working if you expect your dh to support you.

HeadDoctor · 28/10/2014 17:13

I'm not complaining about it. It is what it is but in my opinion it's an example of how the whole system isn't "fair". And no, I was working when we moved in together. Then made redundant. Now receiving maternity allowance until that runs out then I'll be working again (and probably no better off due to childcare costs!)

ElliotLovesGrub · 28/10/2014 17:17

Apologies, I forgot how particular with our words we have to be on mumsnet these days. Will "speaking negatively" do as a replacement for "complain"?

HeadDoctor · 28/10/2014 17:24

No because I was trying to point out differences, not complain/speak negatively. A single parent with a child under 5 doesn't have to work. A married parent with a child under 5 doesn't have that flexibility. I have been both, I don't think it's a fair system.

IneedAwittierNickname · 28/10/2014 17:28

A single parent with a child under 5 doesn't have someone else who can go to work to pay the bills though Confused
If said single parent does go to work the childcare costs often make it undoable.

And Fwiw I could get the best paying job in the world or marry a very rich man so I don't have too and will still expect the massive £5 per week my ex pays me. Because they are his children and why shouldn't he!

HeadDoctor · 28/10/2014 17:36

No, but as my example illustrates, having that other person who can go out to work can still mean you are worse off than someone on income support.

I would never suggest a man shouldn't have to pay child maintenance just because the mother of his children had married a rich man. Of course the NRP should always contribute.

SoonToBeSix · 28/10/2014 17:39

Wakey the children aren't missing out financially buy the lack
Of CB as they as being provided for in a family with a high wage earner.

SoonToBeSix · 28/10/2014 17:44

By not buy!

SoonToBeSix · 28/10/2014 17:45

Head you seem to begrudge you dp providing for his children and giving them a roof over their heads in their dads home.

HeadDoctor · 28/10/2014 17:47

No, I do not. Again, merely trying to highlight ways in which the system is not a fair system.

WakeyCakey45 · 28/10/2014 17:50

soontobe But the OP is arguing that the stepparent (For want of a more concise description) should have no financial responsibility towards his stepchildren as their needs are met by their own parents.

It has to be all or nothing - if the stepdad is expected to financially support stepchildren (because the state withdraws CB from their mum when their stepdad is a high earner) then that results in the "pot of money" available to support all the DCs in his life being shared more widely. Hence, the calculation for maintenance liability for non-resident children takes the resident children (form whom he is considered financially responsible for) into account.

Caorunn · 28/10/2014 18:08

But they are not his children Wakey so to rely on his relationship with their mother to support a reduction in the maintenance he provides to support his children is very poor form.

Where the mother no longer qualifies for CB on the basis of her chosen relationship the children do not have to lose out as the father of the children has the option of claiming the child benefit, assuming they do not earn above the threshold also.

HeadDoctor - your DH has however many children he has, he remains responsible for them all regardless of his relationship with their respective mothers. As do each of those mothers to provide as best as they can based on their individual circumstances and choices. If your DH is paying court ordered maintenance that he can no longer afford he apply for a variation surely?

SuperScrimper · 28/10/2014 18:16

I have always thought is is disgusting that a non resident parent can get a reduction based on living with someone else's children.

I totally and utterly believe there are 2 people responsible for each child. The biological Mother and Father. There is no need for a reduction for step children as their actual Father should be supporting them.

WakeyCakey45 · 28/10/2014 18:21

Where the mother no longer qualifies for CB on the basis of her chosen relationship the children do not have to lose out as the father of the children has the option of claiming the child benefit

A NRP cannot claim CM for a child who does not live with him - it would be fraud.

A child has to live with a parent for at least 56 days in any 16 week period for that household to be eligible for CB - that's equivalent of 50:50 care.