is it changing from net to gross?

As a parent with the majority of care I would have rejoiced at contributing just 20% net or 16% gross instead of 50%+ of my income towards supporting our children.

There was a limit people could contribute towards pensions which the Government removed not so long ago creating a loophole. However, the CSA can vary the amount the non-resident parent has to pay when there is evidence the amount of income has been reduced unreasonably or diverted for another purpose.

Fiona, do you really think that most PWC's with shared care contribute more than 50% directly towards supporting their children.

Do you include CM and CB as part of your 'income'?

Fiona wrote:

As a parent with the majority of care I would have rejoiced at contributing just 20% net or 16% gross instead of 50%+ of my income towards supporting our children.

The point is that for many NRP's the CSA payment is just one element of their contribution.

They will also have to travel to collect their children, buy them things, take them places. To see their kids they will need to maintain a home and possibly a car. They may well be paying off their ex's debt, and to add insult to injury, spousal maintenance. They may also have to budget for court costs. No welfare benefit, social housing or tax credit is available to them. They sink or swim.

In truth, minimising a CSA payment will in many cases be the best way to protect the child's interests and ensure the NRP/child relationship is maintained.

***

kwall wrote;

Fiona, do you really think that most PWC's with shared care contribute more than 50% directly towards supporting their children.

Do you include CM and CB as part of your 'income'?

I would imagine what PWC's contribute differs from case to case and when care is shared in what proportion it is shared. Our children are now both over 18 but in our case CB and CM together covered about a third of the costs relating to school and everyday essentials - food, clothing, transport, toiletries etc.

zonked wrote:

The point is that for many NRP's the CSA payment is just one element of their contribution.

They will also have to travel to collect their children, buy them things, take them places. To see their kids they will need to maintain a home and possibly a car. They may well be paying off their ex's debt, and to add insult to injury, spousal maintenance. They may also have to budget for court costs. No welfare benefit, social housing or tax credit is available to them. They sink or swim.

In truth, minimising a CSA payment will in many cases be the best way to protect the child's interests and ensure the NRP/child relationship is maintained.

It rather depends upon the individual circumstances, doesn't it? Child support legislation is UK wide and there are a surprising number of cases where professional PWCs (eg teachers) here work full time and raise their children very frugally 12/14 days in ex local authority homes whilst the other 2 days the children have staying contact in a luxury mansion where the household has several cars and a holiday home. That is in part because in Scotland periodic allowances (spouse maintenance) are not that common and limited to a maximum of 3 years.

I've seen cases in England where care is "shared" 3/7 days and the NRP has collected the children after supper ready for bed in their dressing gowns with their teeth brushed at bedtime and returned them first thing each morning for the PWC to give breakfast and get ready for school. In another case a fairly wealthy NRP refused to pay any extras when his son was staying with him and, for example the boy was forced to just watch as the NRP paid only for the children of the NRP's new partner to enjoy rides at Alton Towers.

In our case apart from CB and CTC (£10/week) I received no welfare benefits, social housing or WFTC. I paid SM, half my ex's debts and although any traveling was shared my ex's employer provided a company car and paid the running costs. My ex earned the same as me (but didn't declare it all ) and although the children moved freely between the two homes when he lived nearby his only outlay was a meal once every two or three weeks. He had the children buying food with their pocket money/earnings and preparing it. Even Christmas and birthday presents were hand-me-down corporate freebies.

We can't be responsible for our ex's behaviour. Poor long term outcomes for children of separated families are associated in particular with poverty, high levels of parental conflict and multiple changes to family structures so whether children live in one or two homes one of the most important contributions individual separated parents can make is their best endeavours to provide for children financially.

I do think that 50%+ of a PWC's income goes on the child/ren. I'd go far higher than that too. Any travelling I do is invariably child orientated.

Of course every case is different.

I'm "unfortunate" if you like that the father of the children chooses to avoid any responsibility towards them...

I also know that there are some PWC who would like to bleed their ex-partners dry.

One thing though, children are very expensive.