Seeing kids and spreading CSA payments

I find it a bit incongruous that on one hand the CSA will discount all outgoings except pension scheme and income tax for the non-resident parent taking the view that in the interests of the children, child support must take first priority, yet it takes no steps whatsoever to ensure that child support income is spent directly on the needs of the children.

The CSA will freely admit that if the PWC wishes to spend the money on take-aways for her boyfriend or anything else not directly related to the children, then they have no concerns.

Why not?

jslgb wrote:

Also, cm isnt something you qualify for, its your childrens right to be supported by both parents and in all fairness, if your entitled to 50% access you should provide 50% financial support.

Unfortunately the system for 50% residence is clearly broken. Even in cases of 50/50 shared care, the CSA still consider the parent in receipt of child benefit the PWC.

If both parents work and the PWC has a higher paid job or earns roughly the same amount, the NRP still has to pay maintenance to the PWC. On top of that the PWC will get child benefit and maybe tax credits too.

The NRP has to pay all the same costs (housing, bills, food etc) but gets no maintenance, no child benefit, no tax credits and the child isn''t taken into account for other income related benefits because they don''t get the child benefit.

In such circumstances the "NRP" and consequently the child loses out significantly.

Your argument (and the CSA system) tie together quantity of contact and amount of maintenance paid, an argument that would get you a rollicking from a judge in court.

You''re absolutely right that NRP''s have an obligation to their children but the CSA system is broken in all cases where there is equality (of residence or of finances).

Wow this is an area that could get very heated from either side.

I see it from both tbh....

The £23 per week per child for me is easily swallowed up, teenagers!!!
Clubs
Clothes
Uniforms
Food (omg don''t even go there ... Hollow legs ), never knew you could spend so much on dinner money
Hair cuts
& then you have the fact you have to keep a roof over their heads .... What a liberty

I am denoting in jest for anyone who is about to shoot me, but then I realise there is also the expenses of the NRP in terms of food, clubs, activities etc when children with them (tbh this is not the case for me but can be for some ... Diddly squat comes to mind). But hey I''m not bitter.

If it were ever asked for proof then bring it on ... Spreadsheets are my thing I can take it down to the very last kw per hour (given that they can never switch off anything electrical perish the thought!).

It is swings & rounder-bouts really, & each will only see it from their perspective & often neither side will give an inch. Not sure there is a solution, you just have to work at it, which I admit is a difficult thing.

Sorry no help at all JJx

Clearly nobody should ever doubt that what you receive is spent on the kids.

The issue comes, in my view, when the payment is in excess of say £500 per month.

One of the few things that the original CSA scheme tried to do was to work out the actual cost of raising a child. As I said earlier, the Insolvency Service have also had a stab.

To my mind, there should be no questions asked until that threshold is reached, so long as the children are kept healthy, clean, well fed.

Over that limit child support should be optional.

Some will recoil in horror at that statement coming from an NRP.

But is a father not paying anymore than is needed any worse than a mother spending that money on other things?

My ex works as a paid member of staff in a charity shop. She claims the kids wear shoes that are too big because their feet grow so quickly. Really? That''s not what a shoe shop tells you.

It is sickening when fathers don''t pay enough. But women using the CSA rules to subsidise their own lives and avoid full time work is equally wrong.

I am sure many men would feel much happier knowing that the surplus was going towards eventual university fees.

No heat from me, I find the conversation stimulating. Sorry if my wording implied otherwise .



fairylandtime wrote:

Wow this is an area that could get very heated from either side.

I see it from both tbh....

The £23 per week per child for me is easily swallowed up, teenagers!!!
Clubs
Clothes
Uniforms
Food (omg don''t even go there ... Hollow legs ), never knew you could spend so much on dinner money
Hair cuts
& then you have the fact you have to keep a roof over their heads .... What a liberty

I am denoting in jest for anyone who is about to shoot me, but then I realise there is also the expenses of the NRP in terms of food, clubs, activities etc when children with them (tbh this is not the case for me but can be for some ... Diddly squat comes to mind). But hey I''m not bitter.

If it were ever asked for proof then bring it on ... Spreadsheets are my thing I can take it down to the very last kw per hour (given that they can never switch off anything electrical perish the thought!).

It is swings & rounder-bouts really, & each will only see it from their perspective & often neither side will give an inch. Not sure there is a solution, you just have to work at it, which I admit is a difficult thing.

Sorry no help at all JJx

Wise words

I must admit that perhaps there could be an average set amount for what it should cost to bring up a child, then it could be means tested on both the PWC & the NRP income to agree an individual amount. I supose I am a fairly well paid PWC which is lucky (but only be design ... Worked hard for this for many years) so would expect a reduction.

The amount paid in my case was offered by x & agreed by me under a private agreement, it is less than CSA but am happy that we have agreed & will stick to this, for as long as it holds & as long as its consistent.

As for University ... Don''t get me started, eldest is viewing options as we speak, for me the thought of £9k debt to start with per year is sickening, have even looked at Europe as tbh that may leave eldest in less debt Hoping that x continues funds then (eldests money goes direct to him anyways so no worries there).

There will always be those that work the system to their best advantage, regardless of if it is CSA, benefits & university is a case in point, as maint grants etc are not open to my eldest under me

But that is just the way it rolls.

JJx

The thing about the CSA payments is that they are aimed at allowing the children to benefit from the prosperity of both parents. So if the NRP earns well, the contribution from that parent goes up irrespective of the strict basic needs of the children.

What happened before the CSA was that an amount was worked out by the court that was considered to be a basic amount that was needed to support a child. As far as I can see this was the local fostering allowance, which is not exactly a princely sum. Then the resources of each parent were assessed and it was decided what proportion of this amount they should pay towards the children.

What this meant was that wealthy NRPs frequently got away with paying very little towards their children. They could be living in a mansion on £100k a year and they would still only have to pay a proportion of the basic amount that social services would pay for foster care - and in many cases that is all they did pay. leaving their children in relative poverty unless the PWC themselves earned well. Do people really think we should go back to that situation?

Best wishes,
Sadie

I have wondered if a system whereby each parent contributes the same % of their income. (benefits could maybe not be classed as income) to the pot and then its shared out in proportion to amount of time the children spend with each parent. Time would be in 24hr slots rather than nights, but obviously that wouldn''t stop the issue of restricted contact due to cm and probably to difficult to manage.