CSA in 50/50 Share Residence Order

Hi,

If you have 50/50 shared residence of a child, who effectively has residence?

If the Judge says one parent has residence then that parent who is claiming Child benefit will only receive half of the child benefit. Which I think is a fair system.

Does this mean that the other parent can claim the other half?

With regards to CSA Payment why would the non-resident parent still have to pay the resident parent or the parent receiving child benefit payments, if that parent is responsible for that child 50% of the time?

Surely the responsibility of the upbringing child is down to both parents, to look after, feed, clothe and house the child and should not be looking at the other parent to fund them.

How is that fair?

Can anyone shed some light on the subject.

Regards
Didds

The CSA will assume that the PWC has more costs because they have the responsibility if the children are ill or need childcare after school etc.

Its a really tricky situation and 50/50 split only works if both parents are in agreement that its the best solution and have a private agreement re costs etc.

The PWC will have the right to go to the CSA and ask for money from the NRP and the NRP will need to prove they are providing support 'in kind'

It also assumed that the parent who receives CB is the parent with care and they wont pay CB to two parents unless there are two children, but one parent will still receive more than the other.

To me it does not seem fair what the CSA does.

Child benefit acknowledges that the parent with so called residence only has the child half the time, hence pays them half the money.

The CSA still seem to penalise the NRP regardless.

Even with that said neither parent really has the right to say a child fully resides with a parent in my view in a 50/50, they have shared. If that is the case neither parent should have to be forced pay each other, unless they want to of course.

Thanks jaymdee for your reply.

I can see how you are thinking Didds, but take a moment to think a little more. Will you have a significantly higher income that you ex? Would you really want your children to spend half of their time with someone who doesn't have enough money to get by properly?

You don't have to use the CSA, you can come to a private arrangement. Just remember though that if you agree to less, your ex can eventually use the CSA to make you pay what the law says you should.

I actually think this is one of the most logical and fair parts of divorce. There is a formula and a process but no room for subjectivity or emotion.

Hope you can sort things out between you both,
Andy

Hi Sleepy11,

I can see your point about not wanting your child to do without while they are with the other parent...

But what if RP was on a higher income and that the RP did not really care if the NRP was left short at the end of the month.

I know that the CSA does not care as they would take money direct from the NRP salary.

No wants to see their child do without. But I personally believe the CSA should look in to this more than rather this is the formula and that its.

Surly every case is different like every divorce case.

In some circumstances CSA is the only way if especially parents are not getting on.

At the end of the day the person that suffers the most, is the child.

I agree with you on that point, just guess that I have no energy left to fight the system as well as everything else. A system that used both incomes and needs would certainly be much fairer but would also be more open to abuse - on both sides. At least with this one you can easily work out who pays what. Hope I don't sound like an apologist for it though!

Unfortunately the CSA system works on number of nights so will always see one parent as being PWC and one as NRP.

CSA was never intended to make childrens lives better it was to cut state benefit claims.