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?

Thanks Wakey I didn't realise that.

I sometimes hate these threads because of the attitude people have who are voicing opinion on them.

I don't believe that an NRPs partners income should be taken into account in the majority of cases because it is not their financial responsibility to financially contribute to their partners children upbringing. However I do think it should be taken into account if the NRP decides to become a stay at home parent for example. In that case the NRPs new partner is taking over financial responsibility for their children and I do think that they should therefore by default be liable to contribute towards their partners children also. I realise this is a controversial view for many though.

I have never agreed with a deduction from the NRPs income for step children either. If you cannot afford to maintain the same level of financial support to your existing biological children whilst making a feasible contribution to your new household you should not be integrating yourself into that household in the first place. As a single parent I would not ever move a man into my home that thought that by living with myself and my daughter it was acceptable to reduce maintenance payments. Categorically it would not happen.

The PP who thinks it's unfair that her partner has to pay the % of maintenance that he does because his ex is better off than them is morally bankrupt as far as I am concerned. He had his children prior to you being involved. He has a financial obligation towards his children, the income of the ex is none of your damn business. She could be a multi millionaire and he should still be paying towards his children.

I often wonder if people with this attitude would feel the same if in 2-3 years down the line they split and they were the higher earner.

No parent should take on sole responsibility of any aspect of raising their children. Sadly many do and sadly many of the NRPs support and encourage their "D"P's to reduce maintenance to benefit their own household. Maybe you should have been adult enough in the beginning to work out finances before entering into a partnership with someone who already had children they need to provide for.

I am more than aware that there is a chance of unforseeable hardship and in those cases I do agree that a reduction is the right route to go down. But the key word there is unforseeable.

You've taken what I've said out of context Alba. I think the percentage he currently pays is fair.

So you're suggesting I should have stayed a single parent for the next 10+ years, only having my husband stay 2 nights a week, claiming from the state, not marrying him because that would probably mean I couldn't claim benefits legitimately and therefore putting myself at a different financial risk...

It would be lovely if the NRP could provide over and above in whatever circumstance but it isn't a realistic view, sadly. And I say that both as the devil incarnate new wife and as the RP whose CM got reduced massively as a result of my ex husbands actions.

I'm not saying you should have stayed a single parent at all. I'm saying that a NRP should commit to financially supporting their children and that if they want to change their family dynamic they should only do so if they can maintain their financial support to their existing family. If they can't do that then they need a find a way that they can or not increase their household.

Also please don't be a martyr, I have absolutely zero problem with new partners. What I have a problem with is anyone supporting a parent in reducing financial support to their children in order to support their step children. If you can't do both then don't move in with someone who has children until you can.

"Im not saying you should have stayed a single parent but you shouldn't have moved in with your partner"

What are you saying then? How do I not move in with him but not stay a single parent?

Well are you saying that you supported your partner moving into your home knowing full well he would reduce his maintenance to his existing children in order to provide for yours?

If that is the case then yes, in short you should have stayed in single parent until you/your partner was in a better financial position.

I'm saying that a NRP should commit to financially supporting their children and that if they want to change their family dynamic they should only do so if they can maintain their financial support to their existing family

But that's the problem with the current system - it requires the NRP to support any additional, unrelated, children they live with.

So, a responsible NRP, who is fulfilling MN expectations and paying as much as he possibly can, over and above the minimum assessed by the CSA to support his DCs can never consider a new co-habiting relationship with a partner who has resident DCs, because he will be expected to support those DCs as well, and all his disposable income is already committed to his own DCs.

Until a stepparent is disregarded for the purposes of child-related benefits for the household, this injustice will continue.

Wakey - we haven't established that CB is not payable to a NRP as a general premise. You have not provided the factual evidence to support that. An anecdote re: your circumstance yes. An informed, factual position no.

Further your CSA comments earlier were around the use of CB in residence determination. Why would residence be relevant if the awards are based on the number of nights the child spends with each parent? You do not now need to have residence (and in fact there is no such concept any longer) to make a claim.

If one parent no longer qualifies for CB and is unwillingly to support a claim from the other the only losers are the children.

i am also somewhat confused as to the constant reference to reliance on the state. Please do not assume that all do so. I certainly do not. And know two others who are separated from their children's other parent who do not either.

Unless of course Wakey the parents of those children support the children themselves…

And no-one has suggested all a NRPs disposable income should be spent on his children - merely that if there is an arrangement in place it shouldn't change on the basis of that NRP voluntarily deciding to support someone else's children. And unforeseen circumstances aside it is a voluntary choice. I am bemused as to why supporting your children is seen as a negotiable commitment. You couldn't call the Bank and say sorry now living with someone else and got a couple of extra children to support so I'll just be knocking £100 a month of my mortgage payment. Sorry about that.

No you're right. So those fortunate to not have to rely on the state can move in with their partners. Those who do not earn enough have to stay as single parents.

I disagree wakey, you can pay for your children whilst contributing to another household. I'll take a fair low wage of let's say £300 pw gross which is £260.82 net. Weekly Child Maintenance based on 1-2 overnight stays pw for one child would give you a figure of CM at £31. Over the course of a year net pay would be £13,562.72 the annual CM would be £1612 so their annual income after deductions for existing child would be £11,950.

That is almost £12,000 to contribute to another household whether it be shared or not. If you can't do it then don't, look at possible avenues of increasing your earning potential if you want but don't take a very minimal amount of money away from your children in order to support someone else's.

Do you know what would happen if I only contributed £1,612 annual to my daughters upbringing? I would be in jail for child neglect. I'm not suggesting stripping NRP of 50% of their wages or anything ridiculous like that. Like I said, I have zero issue with people moving on and combining their families or extending their families but by christ only bloody well do it if you can afford it.

i am also somewhat confused as to the constant reference to reliance on the state. Please do not assume that all do so. I certainly do not. And know two others who are separated from their children's other parent who do not either.

As has been highlighted up thread, it is only "high earners" who receive no support at all from the state to raise their DCs.

The vast majority of us are grateful for the additional finances made available and will ensure that we maximise it, for the sake of our DCs. You are obviously fortunate enough not to be in that position, and to mix in circles with people who are similarly fortunate.

The statistics regarding the number of single parents in poverty are frequently quoted on this board; it's unusual to hear a single parent admit that neither they, nor others who they know of, are struggling financially , nor are dependent on the financial support they receive. Either the statistics are inaccurate, or your own circumstances deviate from the majority.

HeadDoctor it is about living within your means. As a parent you have an obligation to support your children. Taking on someone else's children knowing full well it is at the expense of your existing children is low IMHO and I'm afraid my opinion is the same for people who support a parent doing that.

But really in the grand scheme of things my opinion doesn't matter. I'm just one woman giving her point of view as everyone else in entitled to do.

FWIW my ex doesn't pay a penny. never has and will probably never will. I have never been on the receiving end of deductions of CM because there has never been any to begin with. On another thread I was accused of being bitter because my ex had moved on, this was assumed because of my opinion and couldn't be further from the truth.

Nonsense. If you only HAD £1612, the state would top you up.

£12000 - well half of that would go on rent alone and even then you'd be looking at somewhere pretty small. Plus you'd need to have money to feed them, clothe them, take them out to places, heat your house, cover petrol costs to work, buy work clothes etc etc. £12000 doesn't go far at all. And heaven help you if you're paying court costs because the RP won't let you see your child for no good reason.

"Only do it if you can afford it" - which sets up a two tier system where the rich can move on with their lives, remarry and have further children but the poor must stay separate until their children are adults.

You system is nice in theory but in practice it does not work.

"Only do it if you can afford it"

If only more parents heeded this advice. I see too many families struggling to make ends meet because they chose to have a second child. Why not stop at one? The parents should have considered their current and future obligations to their oldest child before having another and exposing two DCs to hardship.

12,000 would presumably be only half the household income and if it wasn't someone within that household would be entitled to benefits too.

Yes if I only had £1,612 I would get benefits but that wasn't what I said, what I said was if I contributed only £1,612 (the same as the NRP in the hypothetical situation) to my childs upbringing I would be jailed for child neglect. Fact.

Sorry but life is a two tier system, there are many things people can't do because they can't afford it. I couldn't move my partner in because financially it wouldn't be workable and I wouldn't do it at the expense of his current children because neither of our morals would allow it.

My system may not work in practice in the way you apply things to your life but in my life it works just fine but then I don't see moving in with a partner as more important than them consistently and fairly contributing to their childrens upbringing.

I'm not sure if that was meant to be sarcastic or not Wakey but I actually agree with what you have said to be honest.

It's very easy to talk about living within your means when you earn enough to do so.

Also, the system you put forward assumes that financial benefit trumps any other benefit that may arise from the NRP combining a household and I don't believe that is the case. There's a balance that needs to be met. When DH made the decision to reduce down to the CSA level, it was done with the knowledge that actually his children would be affected in the most minimal of ways (and actually weren't at all as the money was replaced by another source) and my children could at least have new school shoes that year. And from the divorce alone, his ex wife (and by extension, his children) came out £100k better off than he did so no, I don't feel too guilty about it and especially not when his children still have far better quality of life than mine do. The CSA reduction makes things very slightly more balanced. He pays exactly what the system says he should pay to his ex wife and then we do what we can when the children are with us. If he was still with his ex wife then the children would actually be getting even less money overall as she wouldn't get the state benefits and their family budget would be reduced by a significant amount paying off the credit cards she ran up in his name.

If that makes me low, morally bankrupt or wrong in some other way then so be it.

But he isn't contributing only £1612 to their upbringing. He's also providing a house, clothes, food etc etc for the time the children are with him. Very weird argument there Alba.

Gingerbread states:
Children in single parent families are twice as likely as children in couple families to live in relative poverty. Over four in every 10 (43 per cent) children in single parent families are poor, compared to just over two in 10 (22 per cent) of children in couple families

over 4 in 10? 5 perhaps? that's half at the most, not a majority as you state, Wakey.

This would suggest that the majority of single parents are living above whatever poverty line is used in this research (and there are many ways of defining poverty) which is a good thing, surely? I don't rely on benefits/tax credits to get by and my personal circumstances are such that I could probably manage without them but they are very welcome and really make a difference to the quality of our lives. I suspect that is the same for a lot of single parents - we are not all working part-time on minimum wage and fulfilling some kind of ridiculous single parent stereotype.

None of this changes what I think about maintenance and the need for my ex to provide for his children. Just 'cos I manage doesn't absolve him of his responsibilities, nor does it mean any new partner should say to herself 'it's OK, she earns well, he doesn't have to provide anything'. Sadly, my experience is such that there are plenty of women out there happy to do exactly that.

That covers (in the hypothetical situation) two days a week even if you take into account what those two days costs it's nowhere near the amount that the RP outputs on a weekly basis.

And besides the NRP would have to do that regardless of whether or not they lived with other children. And it's not on par with what a RP would be outputting in those same costs. What I have issue with is the deduction based on somebody else's children not really the rest it's just a point worth considering.

We are not all working part-time on minimum wage and fulfilling some kind of ridiculous single parent stereotype.

fedup that's one of the most refreshing things I think I've every read on the LP board. I'll definitely remember it

The food perhaps but clothes cost the same if they are worn for 2 days or 5. The house big enough for the non resident children has to be paid for every day of the week whether they are there or not. Petrol costs for getting to work to provide salary for CM isn't two days. Childcare is often covered mostly by tax credits, if the RP works, or she might be at home on income support. Plus the RP will either get some sort of state support or be on a reasonably high income.

Wakey I receive no financial support from any source. Including the children's father. I earn well. As do the other professionals I know. We are not that unusual but I fully accept not the norm either.

I also agree with you statement re: only do what you can afford. Many many families do not have more children as they realise they actually can't afford to do so. Others don't and rough it out. The difference is that that roughing out is agreed between the two adults deciding to have more children with no impact on another family unit.

And HeadDoctor I am sorry but money gives you choices in all aspects of life. A trite but true reflection of reality I am afraid. You and your DH have made your choices; as has his former partner. That doesn't negate his responsibility. Nor does it mean that he should reduce his contribution to his children to ensure parity for yours.

You are also right however in that you need to look at it in the round, money isn't the whole story. You do however sound bitter and angry about his former partner and the impact his commitments are having on your life and that of your children. I am not sure that can be a positive for anyone involved.