lets laugh, who gets maintenance and how much?

[onlywantsone]

I'm laughing, really I am - my XP doesnt see my DD due to various issues but givesme a voluntary contribution towards her upbringing out of the "kindness" of his heart of

drum roll please

£5 a week

TA DA!!!!!

They will see the truth, though....

As I said before, it's about being able to look yourself in the mirror and KNOW you did what was best...

They are being fed lines now (and my DSDs were when they were younger) but they can see what's what now they are older!

Reality - I just signed up.

I have NO CLUE what's going on ... Welcome to my world!!! hahaha!

Ta, I've sent you a request to follow you

harribo, the reason I say that 'if they were still together' was because, as was pointed out elsewhere, that is what the csa aims to do, to keep the financial position the same as if the couple had stayed together. They made the rule, not me

FAQ - what about the NRP's gas bill, food etc etc when the children stay over? If on the old csa system, he gets no allowance for these unless he has the children over 100 nights a year

Sorry, Crazycrazy - I didn't realise that was the CSA position... Surely 15-25% of someone's salary isn't like the couple staying together though?

And, IMHO (and not having a go at you) it SHOULDN'T be about the couple being together. They aren't. It's a whole new ball game!

reality - can you see my picture? did it come up OK?

mrsjammi, you made an excellent point,

'well in that case hardly anyone should have a second child - ever - because as a general rule of thumb the more children in a family the less money to go around'

I notice no-one is criticising the PWCs for having any new children, yet by default less will be spent on the 'old' children as a result

harribo, in this case, why should maintenance go up when the NRP's income goes up? Exactly because the CSA aims to get to the point the children would be in if the couple had stayed together. Personally I thing the % of income is ridiculous, surely cost is cost and not income related

hahaha! Wedding photo! Had more slap on than you could shake a stick at - Even DSDs didn't recognise me!! hahahhaha!

Crazycrazy - I'd go loopy if Dh's ex tried to go back to court to get more money cos she thought DH was earning more.

I think that's equally wrong. cost is cost. Absolutely agree.

Well I'm going to disagree again Haribosmummy . There are plenty of things about which a family think 'oh, I should pay less now, cos of the baby'. The mortgage, utilities etc can't be changed because it's a fixed amount, but in every other area there have to be cutbacks of some sort. Not only do costs go up but income can very often decrease too.

To me it comes back to the sentiment that a Dad is only seen as a good Dad because of the amount he pays. Someone mentioned it earlier, anniemac I think, and I agree wholeheartedly. OK, our payments went down when dd was born (and actually it wasn't our doing, dsd's mum asked for a reassessment), dsd was able to have fewer material things, we were able to have fewer days out etc with her when she was here - but what she did get was her gorgeous little sister whom she adored. And I bet had we given her the choice of having material things or dd, dd would win hands down every time. It's not all about money.

I was reading the chat until page 4 then my eyes went squiffy. I wanted to comment on the CSA but it all seems to be about Twitter at this end.
Never mind.

For what it's worth, the CSA actually helped me. Yes they were pretty crap cos they didn't seem to move anything forward themselves, so I was ringing and prompting them regularly. By dint of keeping in touch so much that it seemed as if I actually worked there myself, they finally got hold of the ex and told me, after A LOT of paperwork, that he should give me £23 a week (for 11yr old DS - first maintenance in 10 yrs). This took a year from start to finish.

Then the ex turned round and pleaded with me for clemency. Said he would give up his job if made to pay. Then he and his DD(age 20) would be out on the streets and I would be to blame, and I would have NOTHING.

So like the kind hearted idiot I am, I resisted the argument that I already had nothing, so, so what? And gave in and accepted his out of sight settlement of £10 a week. Which he is at the moment paying (all of 2 months).

But whan I rang the CSA to tell them this, the lady was very very worried for my situation and was most concerned that I had not been pressured into this decision (which I had). She insisted that I slept on it and call her back next week.
She was a bit of a trooper and I am grateful to her for her support even though I caved in and took the tenner.

£0 (this is what he should be paying, according to the crazy CSA)

I received nothing from ex for ages, then he started paying £15 per week on the advice of his solicitor. I left it in a separate account to pay towards my solicitors fees.

After about a year he stopped paying without any explanation to me but he told ds that he had paid for the Wii I had got him for his birthday.

Shortly after stopping maintenance payments he bought a puppy. Priorities.

Surfermum - It's a bit different for us, cos we have CO, not anything to do with the CSA, so it would mean a trip back to court to renegotiate - really not worth it given the solicitors fees... so I'm coming at it from a different angle.

And, while this might sound strange, I TOTALLY agree that's it's not really about money.

It's just that's what DH's ex will fight about. So, by not changing it, by not asking for a reduction cos we have the kids so much, it just eliminates that argument.

She's still not happy, we still get the poor me, I cannot afford anything - even though on TOP of child support, we pay school fees + 100% of extras, phones, i tunes, Pocket money, clothes, holidays - you name it, we pay for it.

But, it's not worth the argument. The kids are teenagers now. A couple of years, they'll be adults. The elder girl is already on the verge of living here FT (and would be if we would continue to pay her mother the child support!!!

my son, in lots of ways, will have less materially than his sisters. I am happy with that. I think his sisters have far too much, far too young. I think they've made be responsible, in lots of cases, for their mothers' happiness. I think, for what my DS lacks materially, he will gain in other ways.

But, if money is what smoothes the path, then so be it.

He may not be lying. They told dh that too. He got a random letter from them "Dear Mr Surfer we have reviewed your payments and have decided that from now on you should pay monthly by bank credit. Please use the enclosed paying in slips. The amount we have decided you should pay is £0".

I kid you not. They asked him to pay £0 and even sent him the paying slips to enable him to do so.

He'd been paying on time, without fail, by direct debit ever since his first assessment (and voluntarily before that) and that amount still stood.

HM I wish I could take money out of the equation but 'I want £400 a month or you never see your daughter again' is very hard to ignore, wouldn't you agree?

Yes, I agree about smoothing the path, we have always been of the opinion that we will do as little as possible to piss dsd's mum off. I have paid dsd's maintenance for the past year as dh has set up a business and it's not into profits yet. And I pay for all the other things we get her. I say "I", it's "our" money but it's what I earn. It hasn't occurred to us to get our CSA payments reduced because of it, and I'm sure we could. But if push came to shove and we were in danger of losing our house we would have to. And we could to ask them to take into accounts the overnights, which there are loads of and which we have never told them about.

Nope.. anita - just rise above it. (though keep any documentation, anything in writing).

I reckon Dh's kids were pay-per-view for a while, but they get older, it gets easier...

a relationship with your child is worth £400, yes?

MrsJammi - DP became DH in Vegas - it was subtle - honest!!! Best day ever!!

Surfermum - Abosultely - when push comes to shove if you HAVE to reduce money, then fair enough.