Court order needed for correct and fair child maintenance assessment

[theredhen]

Dp and his ex have always calculated maintenance as per CSA calculations and each year, dp would send exw his payslip to prove his income.

When dsd2 moved in with us, she refused to do the same but started paying £5 a week. We pay for school uniforms, school trips, driving lessons, all clothes for dsd1 and 2 and clothes at ours for dsd4 etc etc. Ex w contributes nothing at all towards dsd2. We even provide money for her to feed herself at mums.

The day the new child maintenance system is brought out, ex wife puts in a claim and claims that dsd1 never stays at ours despite her living with us a third of her life for the last 8 years.

The child maintenance people have stated that they will not reduce maintenance for overnights for dsd1 as ex wife won't admit that she stays with us. Our court order only applies to dsd4 as the other 2 were deemed "too young" to be put on a court order despite being under 16 at the time. Dsd1 was over 16.

So the moral of the story is.. If you can't afford a court order (which many out there can't) or the kids aren't put on one because of their age, then chances are you will pay more maintenance if the ex is obstructive.

Go to your MP. Ask the MP to write to the CSA and ask them what their procedures are for ascertaining the number of overnights because going on one person's say so when there are conflicting numbers is obviously unfair and wrong.

I would also take photos of the children in their PJs, standing in front of the television with the Sky time showing on the telly to prove that the children are staying overnight.

They should let the NRP keep a diary of overnights and reassess.

Writing to the mp is a good idea. I might do that.

It is very clear in their literature that if shared care is disputed, they will assume 1 overnight per week to the Nrp. (Even if it could be 2 or 3 nights). However if the RP states that no overnights take place, her/his say so will be taken as correct.

As for the photographs. Dsd wouldn't agree to having her photo taken, especially if she thought it was to do with conflict between her parents.

Oh how ridiculous. Their literature needs to be disputed then. By the MP.

This is from a Child Maintenance Options worker who answered a similar query on another forum:
--------------

Hi, I'm Sarah, a consultant at Child Maintenance Options.

When making a decision about shared care, the CSA should consider the information and evidence provided by both parties. I suggest that you contact the CSA and ask them what information they will accept as proof of shared care. The number you need will be on any letter the CSA have sent you.

If you do not agree with the decision the CSA has made in relation to shared care in your case, you should formally ask them to review their decision. If you're still not happy, then you can appeal against the decision. This is a legal process which can take a long time to go through. However, you do not need a solicitor to represent you at an appeal.

For more information about reviews and appeals, visit www.direct.gov.uk/childmaintenance

I hope this answer helps you,

Sarah.

That's very interesting. Thank you.

It does seem to contradict their literature although it does refer to CSA rather than the new system,so perhaps that's why.

Years ago when the ex "disputed" - i.e. lied through her spiteful teeth - the number of nights the SKs stayed with us the CSA accepted - in DP's favour - what the truth was, with him providing copies of emails that he'd exchanged with the ex about contact, transcripts of texts between them, plus each time he went to fetch them on a particular date, he'd buy a Mars bar or something from a garage up there and get a dated receipt which also showed the location. He'd then do the same when he took them home. As they live more than 100 miles from us, the ex would have had a hard time explaining why he was otherwise at her local garage if not en route to collect or return the SKs.

This went on for years - because DP endured several years of obstructed contact and the ex was forever on the phone to the CSA asking them to "reassess" the number of nights stayed with us - it was literally every couple of months or so. Off the record, one CSA officer admitted to DP that it was clear the ex was messing about and being difficult for the sake of it but unfortunately, each time she "disputed" arrangements they had to look into it instead of telling her to piss off and stop wasting everyone's time.

DP used to send all this gumpf on a regular basis but obviously it was a right faff and in true CSA style where the left hand doesn't know what the right hand's doing there were a number of occasions when payments would be recalculated on her say so - only for them to be set back again once DP protested and quoted names and previous incidents where this proof had been accepted by them. He also used to take lots of dated pictures - though he was careful not to ask the kids to pose as such - with background stuff in which proved they were away from home and with him, though their ridiculous mother would still be claiming they were with her on a particular date. IIRC, I don't think the CSA ever asked for any of the photos though - they just accepted the receipts and the emails etc.

It really was a shocking waste of time and (taxpayers') money. I still feel very angry just thinking about it now ..... understandably, I guess there can be malice and lies on either side and such claims should be looked into, but once it had been proven, say, 3 times that the ex was a liar, she should have been banned from bringing any further disputes within a set and sensible timeframe.

I hope you can sort this out. The gall of the bloody woman! Writing to your MP can't do any harm. I know from experience it can be sorted, but DP found he had to be very persistent with them ..... obviously, as I said, our experience was some years ago - from around 2005 to 2010 - I don't know if their attitude to this sort of thing has changed since then.