Child Support and Extras

Fiona wrote:

jaymdee wrote:

Even a statement on the CSA website stating what CM money was intended to pay for would help.

Its such a grey area which causes a lot of grief for both parties.

I don't think it is a grey area at all. Until recently the CSA website said that CM is a contribution towards the financial cost of raising a child. It now says;-

"child maintenance is regular, reliable financial support that helps towards a child's everyday living costs."

Everyday living costs include clothes, food, transport, toiletries, equipment, laundry, child care, replacing worn out furniture and bedding, stationary , housing, bills, haircuts, paying for damages, activities, presents etc etc. NRP's are entitled to a discount in the amount of CM paid because they are responsible for child's everyday living and the costs when the child is with them.

So when the NRP has the children the same amount of time as the PWC and therefore incurs the same living costs why should they be required by the CSA to make a payment to the PWC? By having the children the same amount of time as the PWC they have the same everyday living costs.....and the PWC receives the Child Benefit.

Well I have just looked through the CSA web site and cannot find the information quoted.

Does anyone have a link?

Even if it does say a contribution and that the PWC is responsible for paying for haircuts etc, it is not obvious. It should be the first thing on the CSA home page so that everyone knows where they stand.

Yes I've just checked the csa website on page 24 paragraph 2 it says
cm covers payments for the ex misus new shoes,handbags,caffee lattes at costa.Copious vats of sauvignon blanc at the weekly ladies that lunch meets.Weekends away with the new fella and gals nights out.
After this the ex misus should guilt trip the ex hubbie to providing more money "for the kids" child care (so that she has a bit more time to pursue the above pursuits)school uniforms and shoes as you don't want to miss out on them christian louboutins and kids haircuts as all the cm will have gone on the tinting at Toni and Guy.Kids school trips also as you have spent the cm on the trip away for yourself whilst you have a week to yourself.
The csa guidelines really are a fascinating read

NewHorizons wrote:

CSA is all you "have" to pay.
All you need to do is say no.

Reading through this thread, I stand by my previous post.

I agree its unhelpful, yet really, if a parent is 'only' obliged to pay this amount, then really this has to be dealt with by the PWC.

I think in this case, both the parents feel that they're losing out.

In my case, although I have asked CSA to investigate hidden income, I have never asked my ex to help with anything. I go without, end of.

I know my children will never appreciate it, and I know their father will always take credit for what they achieve. Something else I can't change.
I don't save for my children's future, as I never have any money spare to do so...

Personally, I feel you need to state that what you pay is all you're able to, and that you won't be helping with other expenses. Life's to short to be worrying about this when you are doing what you need to.

Please explain where on CSA site its states what the CM is to provide for because all I can find is the 'provide for everyday expenses' quote.

As long as the CSA system calculates CM, the way it does, and does not provide clarification on what CM actually covers, then this will always be a contentious issue.

CSA calcualted CM is all the NRP should pay. As I've said before, imagine the RP contributing the same amount as NRP, and add on CB, Tax Credits, Childcare Tax Credits, to the RP's income then this should be more than enough to provide for the child/childrens needs and activities when with the RP.

Unless it was something really special, and expensive, that would be of a great benefit to the child, I would not hand over anymore money than CSA calculations.

Reading through a lot of these threads, it really does seem that the RP honestly believe in most of the cases I've read where there are problems is that they don't have to contribute anything. It takes 2 to make a child, and whilst there are calculations in place to say what the NRP pays, there is nothing at all that says that the RP should be making a contribution too. Hence why many of these people don't actually look at it from that point of view, and make endless demands, with the added guilt trip, there your children, and their missing out because of you.

I feel sorry for those who have problems receiving CM from their ex, but for those of us who pay properly, give us a break. If we have our children overnight, we have the same overheads with regards to housing, utilities, clothing and feeding our children for when they are with us.

Sorry for the rant, but having been a very reasonable RP, to now be one the receiving end as a NRP, this really gets my back up.

The CSA took over the role of assessing (and when necessary collecting) CM from the courts. When working out child maintenance the courts would calculate a child's everyday living costs by adding up all the parent with the majority of care's reasonable household living expenses (including family holidays, child care, haircuts etc) and dividing it by the number of people living in the household. Child maintenance is a contribution towards meeting those costs.

"Child maintenance is regular, reliable financial support that helps towards a child's everyday living costs."

www.csa.gov.uk/en/maintenance/about.asp

and

www.cmoptions.org/en/maintenance/index.asp