CSA Question

[AKP79]

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?

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.

Quite. And parents shouldn't have their benefits assessed based on the income of the stepparent; it assumes that the stepparent is willing and capable of supporting additional children.
It is inevitable that non-resident children are going to be detrimentally affected if their dad is being expected (by the state) to support someone else's DCs.

I guess there's no simple solution.

I do think it's unfair that the biological children get a reduced amount because the NRP moves in with someone else.

But otoh it only seems right and correct that the 'new' partners benefits are affected by the NRPs income.

I can't work out how to word that so hope it makes sense!

That said if I ever met and moved in with a man who already had children I would want him to continue paying maintenence at the rate he was unless doing so meant we couldn't afford our bills that is.

So single parent is on benefits totalling £500per week. That's her providing for her children. Father provides as per CSA, say he's on a low income and provides £50pm. Single parent marries divorced dad with two children. Single parent loses her income as she lives with divorced dad and divorced dad now provides for her and her DC. How is divorced dad supposed to cover these costs without redistributing his income? Or is Father supposed to magic up the missing £500pw? It just doesn't work.

The bottom line in this argument that a system with no flexibility for people in different situations means that it cannot be a fair system. It works fine if there is one RP who doesn't rely entirely on the maintenance to provide for the children and one NRP who pays a decent amount on time every month but anything outside of that and people just end up feeling hard done by because it isn't a fair calculation based on their actual situation.

Mmmm - government web site seems to suggest otherwise Wakey?

www.gov.uk/child-benefit/eligibility

With it being based broadly on if you support that child to an extent at least equal to child benefit (i.e. via. maintenance) even if the child lives with someone else?

There may of course some small print not called out so happy to be corrected with an appropriate link.

Oh and this more specific page here

www.gov.uk/child-benefit-child-lives-with-someone-else

where you may still qualify if the maintenance is court ordered so no minimum value. But accept likely to make little practical difference given the smallish amounts involved.

Or all involved adults think about the impact of their new lives on the children they already have responsibility for and ensure the choices they are making are sustainable financially?

And things happen Caorunn. People lose their jobs, get ill, decide to retrain so that their income increases in the long run while decreasing in the short term.

Plus it's not just financial commitments to consider. My family (DC and DSC) are unquestionably more settled with me and my DH living together than they would be if we lived apart. And if we lived apart and everyone in my situation lived apart there would be the cost of the strain on the state to consider.

It's really not straightforward at all.

Plus then the single parent who couldn't afford to live with her partner without affecting the children maintenance is paid for would have to be careful her partner wasn't staying over too many nights a week or otherwise putting herself at risk of claiming benefits fraudulently. Hardly a long term solution. Or do those of us unfortunate enough to fall in love with a man paying maintenance just accept that we can never have a relationship with that man?

They do HeadDoctor and those things have an impact on all families. But where it get's tricky is where the choices of 2 adults impact on the finances of a 3rd who has no control over those choices. Hence fill your boots, live your new life but make sure you can still afford the bits of your old one you are still responsible for. (Not you specifically but more generally)

I would love to jack my current job in and do a PhD for for the next three years. But I can't. As I have responsibilities. I would be most hacked off if my former husband's new partner decided to do so resulting in a financial impact on my children as he had to support hers? [as a fictitious example]

Sorry x-post. But actually not much difference in my response - no of course you are not prevented from a relationship with a man who already has children but those children are a financial commitment which isn't going to go away and you should be aware that it may limit the choices or impact on the new life you and he choose to have.

The same as additional children would have impacted his life if he had chosen to have more with his former wife.

caorunn www.gov.uk/report-changes-child-benefit. One of the changes that must be reported:

"Lives away from you for more than 56 days in a 16 week period"

Child Benefit is for households which have responsibility for a child. It is also considered a Gateway benefit - a parent receiving Child Benefit can also claim child tax credits (these can be transferred to the NRP only with the agreement of the parent receiving CB), Local Authority's use receipt of Child Benefit to resolve school application conflicts (I have personal experience of this due to my DDs dad changing my DDs address on the Local Authority pupil database when we split) . JSA use Child Benefit to establish eligibility for reducing availability to work below f/t hours once a child is over 5. Even the CSA use it to determine the residence of a DC.

For most resident parents, the implications of what you propose are just unthinkable!

Yes, and the ex husband of the new partner might be fed up of new partner not working or earning peanuts when she had the potential to earn more if she got a qualification. Plus the new partners responsibility is to her own children initially so I can understand why it would be the best course of action for her to retrain. Or for the divorced dad to retrain. Or for the residential parent of the divorced dad to retrain.

We can try and make a one size fits all answer but it won't work. For differing circumstances you need differing rules.

Ah but that does say you will not get the benefit - just you need to report the change. After which presumably they will consider who is entitled to the benefit for that child… which can of course be a person with whom the child doesn't live. I think you may have read too much into that page.

Highly unlikely a RP who has is no longer receiving child benefit due to high income would be concerned with tax credit or free school meals?

Don't assume all LAs apply the same rules are yours and residence may also be court ordered in which case their is no dubiety re: CSA.

So new partner happily hands over CB to ex husband who was financially abusive to her and so he claims tax credits as well. New partner then separates from divorced dad and finds herself in a very tricky position.

New partners responsibility is to her own children first and foremost, she is just another RP after all.

Indeed HeadDoctor and if that whoever choses a life change which means their income reduces they need to consider how they will support the children they are responsible for. Not expect another adult to fill the gap be that their partner or their partner's children.

I fundamentally disagree that we need different rules for different circumstances. As soon as any of us have children our live choices are constrained by the responsibility we have to those children. Be those choices related to where we live, with whom we live, how we earn a living etc.

caorunn It would be refreshing if you credited people with personal experience alongside the "evidence" in the links that you asked for.

From my own experience, I can assure you that Child Benefit will be stopped if you notify the HMRC, as required, that your Child is living with their other parent for more than 56/112 days.
I can equally assure you, from my own experience, that the CSA cares not one iota about what a court may, or may not, have ordered - they base their assessment on what is actually happening in terms of care/contact - based on what the parent receiving child benefit tells them. It is one of the injustices felt by so many non-resident parents, who are facing a breached court order. And, as we have established (above) that a parent who is receiving CB must be responsible for the child for at least 50% of the time, the CSA use Child Benefit, rather than a court order, as the primary indicator of residence.

And as at least one local authority uses receipt of CB to resolve school application conflicts, do you really think it's a good idea for resident parents to sacrifice their eligibility?

The current benefit system places partial financial responsibility of stepchildren onto the (married or unmarried) cohabiting stepparent. No matter how many convoluted, and possibly fraudulent, solutions are proposed, that can't be disputed.

If the new partner separates from high earning divorced dad and presumable has the children living with her she can then reclaim child benefit no? And would take precedence over any claim in place by a.n. other who doesn't have the children living with them.

Indeed new partners responsibly is to her children so she needs to (a) support them; and (b) make choices which do not make her financially vulnerable.

Yes and she can only make those choices within the systems that currently exist. The current system says that she is to be supported by her husband, not the state and that the husband shall pay a reduced amount of maintenance to cover the lost income from the state.

I don't agree with how CSA work out maintenance BUT if your ex was a decent father he would NOT mention them and allow them to work it out like they usually would. Partner and I have had 2 children and he still pays the amount specified without our kids being taken into account. He didn't see it fair his children with his ex getting less because he chose to have more children with me.

I find it so frustrating that even though there are ways to get the maintenance you pay reduced it doesn't mean that you should. I find it unnatural handing over a certain amount and expecting that to cover EVERYTHING like some fathers seem to think it does. I've even heard about fathers thinking they don't need to buy presents for their child at christmas and birthdays because they pay maintenance.

And if she's anything like me, many of the decisions that make her financial vulnerable were made when she was very young and certainly weren't made with the possibility in mind that she would meet a man who also had children and would therefore have to limit HER life choices to support HIS children. It's unrealistic for separated parents to assume that neither of them will make or have forced upon them decisions that negatively impact the children. And ultimately, the state support the children that live with the RP (until she meets a divorced dad of her own of course) in case no maintenance is paid. The state covers the essentials, CM covers "extras". The new partners children don't have anyone making sure their essentials are paid because the state won't pay them anymore.

So no, I do not agree that one size fits all. Where there are two sets of children to consider, one should not take priority which is what would happen if there was no reduction for children the NRP live with.

standing the CSA link the cases automatically.

As soon as I moved in with DH, and registered my change of address with the CSA in relation to my case with DDs dad, they reassessed DHs CM payments for his DCs.

As DHs ex refuses to accept payment from him any other way, our only choice was to ensure that the DSC financially benefited when they were with us. When they went no-contact, DHs payments were reassessed and increased prior to the court case regarding the breached order.

And of course, his DCs now only benefit from the money their mum receives through the CSA. What do you suggest? That DH stuffs an envelope of cash through his exW door?

Cab your DH not pay the csa more tham they have said he has to Wakey? Or do they not allow you to do that?

Standing - so assuming the CSA calculations are balanced to support each child in the equation equally, by not reducing in line with that calculation your DH pays more towards the children he has with his ex therefore leaving less for the children he has with you. That's fine if that works for you but it doesn't work for everyone.

ineed he can, but they won't pass it on to the RP; they hold it on account in case he goes into arrears at any point.

Frankly, it's better off in our bank account than in theirs!

wakeycakey45 every situation's different ,and I'm referring to situations where the mother is putting her children first and wanting the father to do the same. There is nothing more your husband can do financially ,that's the mothers doing ,no one else's.
Didn't know the cases were automatically linked, partner and his ex have always used the CSA calculator and paid privately so don't know the ins and outs.