should his lifestyle be downgraded to support kids

Hi Lou


I bet you have little time to do anything! Yeah- again i am not suggesting at all that you are not doing your best- in fact the opposite. What i am really saying is that thre is only you that can get yourself out of this situation, and his irresponsible behaviour is having more of an impact because of it, and i wish it were different but we can always get other to do what we want them to do and more importantly what they SHOULD do.

My point is that only be focussing on the things you CAN control will you move forward and not be stuck in the past nightmare forever. You cant control what the other parent does or doesnt pay. Writing across the van (yes may give you a nice feeling ) but i doubt it will resolve your situation. I have never heard of that type of tactic working- but i am open to correction if i am wrong. You are bring up 5 kids and running a job so you are clearly a resourceful person. I accept that you might be in an unskilled job, but i dont accept that anyone who can do what you do is 'unskilled'!

You are doing all the right things by the sound of it CSA wise - the problem is that they are pretty useless!


You should keep a little despite the reduction in tax credits for any extra £££ that you earn and the more you keep doing that the less the impact of the tax creidts are when they start to reduce when the bigger little uns become big big uns and leave (probably when they are about 40 ha ha)

There are no training opportunites at work to move you on?

We are fortunate in this country to have a tax credits system and many have to bring up children without maintenance. Tis not fair but its the reality.

Thanks for your thoughts

Rich

I can understand how some parents (male and female) feel that their other half should pay exactly half of their childrens upbringing, but when I split from my son's father I asked him to pay 'as much as he could afford'.

I didn't see the point of saying to my child 'sorry you can't have because your father .....'. I wanted the best for my child, so I went to uni, got a degree and then worked ... very hard.

This isn't an excuse for parents who won't pay (as oppose to can't). I just felt that I had to be the bigger person.

If he refuses to provide a fair quality of life for his kids, then it is him that will have to live with the consequences when those kids are adults and can see what they were denied.

[This is just my opinion and my approach]

round again....very well done you!! I currently have a problem of not being able to enrole on any courses as i can't afford to give up work. I'm even considering volenteering to gain some vital experience.

I applaud you for what you've done, but a bit of me can't help feeling resentful that he could make every thing so much easier for us but chooses to look after his new gf and her kids first.

On another point of veiw every excellent school report is down to his clever genes but ultimatley down to my ability to nurture those genes.

xx

This is of course always a tough subject.

The CSA rules are pretty clear and as unfair as they are they are better than the old system.

You can get Child Support payments from the NRP from two sources (well three but it is a hard one):

1. from income. This is always problematic when the NRP is unemployed, works for cash or is self employed. It generally seems to work out in the end but it takes too long.

2. from assets. Assets totalling more than £65k (excluding the NRP's main home) can be taken into consideration. If it is accepted they exist then they are accessed at the equivalent of 8% interest after tax!!! and then treated just like income.

3. trying to prove lifestyle is hard. What you need to prove if that the person's lifestyle is not in-line with their income or their assets, but all income and assets from a new partner are excluded. So if a bum marries or cohabits with a millionaire guess what, the PWC is entitled to zero! I think that is fair. Because. It is not the new partners responsibility to pay for the children's upbringing, it is for the bio-parents. Most new partners do of course contribute in a big way if the children spend time with them. But there is no obligation to share their wealth with the PWC.

Where CSA remains problematic is that there is a link between the amount of time (nights) children spend with the NRP and how much they should pay.

This does not work in two extremes; it creates a very negative outcome.

1. PWC is in dire financial situation and needs as much CSA as they can get thus actively supporting a 50:50 shared residence situation for the children eats into the money to put food etc on the table.
They are unlikely to support contact(this is almost universally women) the PWC restricts or discourages contact with the NRP to maximise CS. I understand their dilemma, but it is morally wrong and will prove harmful to the children's sense of who they are.

2. PWC has moved on, co-habits or is remarried and has more disposable income that NRP. NRP is still required to pay PWC CS even if they have 50:50 residence agreement. Again seems morally wrong to me.

In this case I noted in one of the posts that the NRP said he will pay and provide for chldren when they start spending time with him (not exact words , but that was the clear interpretation that could be drawn.) This then boils down to a case where the NRP is linking contact and CS. It is emotive and morally wrong but often a result of contact being restricted by the PWC or the child themself is over age 14.

So, should his lifestyle be downgraded to support kids. No. The children should share in his lifestyle by spending more time with him. That is what is in everybody's interest.

PP good points!!! I really like your last paragraph, however in my case the x feeds the kids junk when they are with him, stuff he doesn't eat himself, drops them off early so he can take the gf and her teenage kids for a lovely sunday roast in the pub......that's what I truly resent. Why doesn't he take his own aswell? AND!!!! he tells them! he actually explains that they have to come home early cos he's going out!

ggggrrrrrrrr!