Ex is a millionaire but CSA still wants 2K per month
Most NRP’s (almost all fathers due to anti-father discrimination in divorce)are keen to support their children. But the CSA maintenance calculation needs urgent reform – it currently takes no account of the (in our case very high) mother’s earnings or (in our case massive)mother’s capital, but seeks to penalise further the father who has been financially crippled by the (as in almost every case) unjust divorce settlement exacerbated by the recession.
Why should a father pay £2000-00 per month for the millionaire mother, who earns £5000-00 per month from her own job as a doctor, to look after two children? It just doesn’t make sense – he should have to pay half of what is deemed to be required to bring up the children, with the mother contributing the other half.
59 thoughts on “Ex is a millionaire but CSA still wants 2K per month”
Leave a Reply
And what about the fathers who dont want to pay and the mothers that cant work due to their child being disabled and full time carer for them?? Where's the justice in that…when the CSA lets the father off from not paying??
I am an NRP who is not making CSA payments any more.. and there is nothing the CSA can do about it…..Question is… does that mean I'm a deadbeat dad???????
Every case is different. I agree that every NRP has a responsibility to pay towards their children, and the current percentage of a NRP's earnings is fair as the PWC can often only work part-time or has to put career on hold to look after young children.The above post stating massive earnings is extreme. If father is paying £2000 a month and this is worked out by the CSA – then he must be on a huge wage. It may seem unfair if PWC is on even huger amount – but that's the law! Most of us are dealing with the CSA who take our tax credits and often up to 40% of income so our children have to go without. If I was on your sort of money I'd be very, very thankful.As for you Allan – I've been following your posts and I can understand fully your frustrations and anger as I am a NRPP and PWC being screwed by the CSA. But your your posts are often aimed to shock and provoke – there's no need!
Nobody stops to consider if the NRP has other children with a new partner. It's taken us since May to get CSA to recognise her… to them she's worth £5 a week in the calculation whereas her sisters are worth £20 each per week. It needs reform badly, because theres no fairness anywhere for anyone involved.
Juliet. I see both points here. The csa don't take the PWC's income into it at all though. We're on the verge of eviction with a 4 year old to care for and forced to live in £136 a week because csa take the cash at source. Yes, NRP's should support their children. But they should be able to support both the children they had with the pwc and children with a nrpp right?
And your net income is what, £10,000 pm?
I agree with you Dawn. However, if you are in the same position as us, in that you have a PWC who has gone on to have more children yet claims poverty, always saying we don't pay enough towards my stepdaughter..you have to ask if the same applies..is it still ok for her to have gone on to have more children?Especially since she recently split from her second husband who is now on JSA..and our maintenance payments (yes, ours) are spent mainly on her subsequent child.I am also a PWC, btw.
Dawn, i cannot believe u could say something so awful, my husband was paying 4 his child £80.00 per week, plus all his overtime and the bills in the house including sky cos he didn't want his child 2 suffer,now we are struggling cos his ex told so many lies and we are now in financial hardship.We have a 3yr old daughter who the csa ignore,And in our case and lots of NRP's second families WE ARE THE ONES WHO SUFFER.You must work with the csa cos you have the same attitude.Having children IS THE RESPONSIBILTY OF BOTH PARENTS, not just the NRP.After all it suits the pwc when they are 2gether but as soon as the nrp usually the father leaves and he meets someone else the pwc says i will get the csa and ruin you,its there for people like you who think the dad needs 2 be punished cos he wants better. My husbands ex has not worked full time cos she gets more from my husband working p/t meanwhile we have 2 struggle. I am disgusted with your comments and i am sure others will be too.
I totally disagree with you there Dawn. If you have your first family wrecked by the PWC then why should you be denied the opportunity to have a family unit. In order to satisfy your viewpoint, can I assume that who will become the NRP (normally the man) has the choice to take the kids like the PWC (normally the woman) currently seems to have? By stating your view regarding walking away, it naturally assumes that you view the NRP as having walked away of their own free will? Maybe the state should force both parents of a child to stay together until the youngest child is 18?
I thought my £800 per month was high!! – ekk. Mind you kids DO NOT cost £800 per month to raise…even I don’t cost that much!
well said Lee!!!!! exactly the point that many PWC's tend to miss!!!!
In respect to Juliets comment towards myself… I am not angry or frustated but clearly several PWC's are with respect to their answers and responses towards myself personally…I however!!! am amused by several PWC's who display their anger and frustration in their responses to my comments… those very comments are not about my anger or frustrations…. just my view upon why my PWC has not used CSA payments I previously provided for sake of my child…. why were they not applied for the purpose I made those payments…
Perhaps I should say the unthinkable. Clearly the mother, a full time doctor, is not caring for the two children all day, every day. As such, would it not be better to change the residence over. Then the father can look after the children while the mother gets on with her full time job and sees them alternate weekends, and she can then pay the child support. My real point is, that this is yet another case where there should probably been shared residence from the beginning and then there would have been no need for the CSA to get involved.
I make sure my child benefits from my measly income in my own pockets!!!! and benefits from such more than he benefited from my oversized CSA payments!!!!
And, well said Dawn. Both parents are responsible for LOOKING AFTER and PROVIDING for their children. And what happens when one parent abusing the children and prevents them from seeing the other parent? The money stops flowing! Hence, the requirement of a presumption of shared residence at the time of the split. And, if we continue with residence and contact then the police MUST be required to enforce contact orders (as in France). Having been thru a nasty divorce with my children caught in the middle, I would advise any father to take his children immediately to another country where he can get fair rights to live with, look after and support his children. See tonite's program on SKY where fathers have taken their children to Libya. If the mothers can deny contact then so can the fathers. Sort out our currupt legal system here. Give our children the legal right to be with both their parents and the necessity for a CSA gos away.
And, well said Tracy, Both parents income must be taken into account. If I earn £1500 per month, have to pay rent, council tax etc and look after two children, and my ex receives Income Support £500, Housing Benefit £950 and Council Tax Benefit £100, and has to provide for two children (we have 4, 2 live with each of us) then why should have to pay the CSA £430 per month in additional tax? Because she refuses to get a job, and the DSS are so incompetent that they won't make her look for one! The CSA is just a cover up for the incompetence and sexual discrimination practiced by the DSS.
I am a resident parent legally and morally. I was resident before the locks were changed. BUT residency is AUTOMATIC by virtue of gender i/.e. default for the mother. This is the problem. If your child is disabled we undersntad but if mine was I get no extra suport. Why? Becuase I have a cock and bollocks. Its that simple. We don't live in the 19th century anymore. Men look after children. Women earn as much as men if not more. It needs a radical overhaul to the Danish system. If both parents are resident then the Child Support can chase truely absent parents who have negleced their responsibilities. If the CSA ever contacted me for money (which they could still do even though I am legally resident) to get a calcuator out to apportion time spent with each parent is ludicrous. There IS a generation of children out there (my daughter included) who in a few years will be voting and be working. They are NOT happy with what is ostensibly fascism. People in 30 years will be asking: 'How did we let this happen' Men committing suicide over the actions of a state funded business (its a private business are you not getting this yet?). All those RPs should ask themselves 'what did you do in the war against fathers'" if you capitulated with the CSA your child may disown you in the futre. Its happened to many mothers of friends of mine.
i am unemployed indirectly because of the CSA (SCUM) and i have a 17 year old son whom i see nearly every day, i get on really well with his mum ( mainly because she is a good person and not greedy), i also have twins from an evil ex who has caused me unbelievable mental and financial hardship.In my own situation i would have been ok if the government CSA had set me a set amount to pay, like 16% of what i have left after i pay my bills, ie: mortgage, gas, water, elec, council tax, etc. this is the main problem i believe with the CSA. I am Irish and have lived here for over 20 years and i love this country and this is the first time i have been unemployed and not contributing to the country, i cant see how i can get out of this hole i'm in, unless i get a job where my wages exceed what i'm worth in financial terms… i really want to look after my kids and hopefully the court will sort this out
Kevin, I think thats quite fair. A % to be taken after reasonable living costs have been taken into consideration. However, I think it could make things a little more complex again like CSA1 in that a NRPP income could then be taken into consideration as the lifestyle one might live may exceed salary. The new system I think works well for a NRP who has a new partner, but not so well for a single NRP who carries the living costs alone.
I note juliet that you comment that my comments are aimed to shock and provoke… however! although my comments are ARMED and not aimed to shock and provoke… may I also remind you that there are several PWC's who have made comment that shock and provoke NRP's responses towards such insults and accusations… I therefore provide a defence for those who have been accused with such malicious intent by several PWC's who have made such provocative and shocking comments to many NRP's including that of myself!!!!
I am prepared to provide entertainment also to the offended NRP's as I am of the argumentative nature as and when requested by such abusive and arrogant comments made by several PWC's on here!!!!I will respond in fairness where PWC's aggravate NRP with such comments and question the PWC's motives about their comments!!!Clearly… they wish to provoke as evident in their provocative and shocking comments!!! I am more than happy to comply with my responses as I provide evidently… I have nothing to hide and have the right to freedom of speech as does the PWC!!!If there is no intention to such provocations… then provocative comments to NRP's would clearly not have been made…I look forward to your response in this matter!!!!
Dawn clearly presents her thoughts and I am positive that her comments are as insulting and provocative as she intends them to be!!!
Susan and Lee have made comment conclusively in response to her comments…. I agree with the comments made by Lee and Susan…
Tracy also makes good comment to which I must agree with!!!!!
Once again we come full circle. BOTH parents income, capital, lifestyle etc must be taken into consideration when it comes down to CM calculations otherwise there will always be this situation which also currently exists when it comes to one rule for the PWC that does not apply to a NRP. This IS biased and needs to STOP NOW!!!! But also begs the question HOW????
Peter makes good comment also!!!!
Sarah, there is no way any system the government introduce will ever be fair for the kids when the nrp is expected to provide for his ex when she was the one that left the family home, the nrp should be providing for his kids which he does when he get's to see them… they forced my out of employment indirectly after 20 years never being unemployed and now the tax payer is paying for me, my mortgage my tax, and my ex and our girls and i never wanted that, but the system is set up to give the evil ex (mass majority women, mum's who are probably very good mum's but hate there ex's) all the power and their lie's are believed without investigation.Sarah, i'm sorry but i've read a lot of your previous posts and maybe your ex was not very nice but i think all nrp's on here are good but the CSA have F***ed them over, sit back and think why me and so many other DAD's have put a rope around our neck and some have not pulled through
Sorry Sarah that was a bit strong but when you read some of this stuff and you think of your own situation then you get a bit emotional
Garry also presents excellent comment!!!!!
as does Kevin!!!!!
Note how the PWC never comments on the fact that she parted her thighs in order to create the offspring that both parents should provide for but condemn the male NRP for accepting the PWC's offer to reproduce!!!!One rule for one and another rule for the other?????Both are just as responsible…Clearly PWC's condemn NRPP for doing the same thing they themselves did prior to PWC and NRP separation and feel that the NRPP is not allowed to have a family unit with their NRP!!!A clear case of selfish arrogance and point scoring by PWC!!!!!
Dawn clearly presentsin her comment that she believes all NRP's walk away from their resposibilities….A clear offensive accusation against all NRP's may I add!!!!!!
In many cases, it is clear that PWC lives according to how their NRP affords at NRP's expense of course… and clearly the children sometimes never even benefit from such NRP donations but the PWC does!!!!! this clearly is at the expense of the child/children involved!!!! FACT!!!!!
It appears that many PWC's are intent on scoring points at the NRP's and childs expense rather than obtaining financial support for the child involved..This is clearly evident in most PWC posts!!!!
however! I prefer not to allow point scoring…. How about equality… where did that fly off to?????… give an inch… take a mile?????
this is about making points… not scoring them!!!!!!!
Many clear examples of a woman scorned are evident!!!
Btw… DSS are under the name DWP!!!! lol
I now await further EPIC FAILS from PWC's who find my comments disturbing!!!!
If i was taking home £1100 per month and and to pay £300 mortgage, £130 council tax, Gas, Water, Elec, phone, TV and arrears, £250 = £680 then food and car expenses, how much should i pay the PWC (my children)
our mortgage was £590 per month and i had to put my name forward to do as much overtime a possible to pay her £40 per week and my son £20 that on top of paying for shoes, toy's and clubs but that wasn't good enough she wanted more (selfish greed)
Allan – I fully support and actually like you from what I can see from your comments. Your first comment which I said was offensive when there is no need was 'I don't pay maintenance and the CSA can't make me…' Your excuse that many PWC's drive NRP's to make offensive comments – why stoop to their level? YOU know what's right and they have to live with their conscience.Not all PWC's are money grabbing bxxxxxxs. Some just want some help to support their children from the partner that helped produce them. Lots of PWC's want to share care and go out of their way to ensure the relationship between the NRPs and children remains strong (not all, but some).Dawn – it is NOT your children's money. It is your money to ensure you provide them with a warm, well-fed life. It enables you to work part-time if you want to so that you can be there for your children.The CSA is wrong in many, many ways. Giving discount for step-children I believe is wrong – but so is including child tax credits and child disability allowance of stepchildren in the NRP's pay. My partner brings home £90 a week and because he has to include CTC and my disabled child's benefits – he pays out over £50 a week to an ex who doesn't let his children stay overnight to ensure he doesn't get a discount. Am I bitter? Yes I am, very much so. But will I let it ruin my beautiful family and bring resentment into our home – no I will not. All the 'bullying' tactics of the CSA such as 40% deduction of earnings, stupid amounts of arrears that they can't explain, threats and enforcements – all wrong, wrong, wrong. They also believe the PWC's word is gospel and will not listen or accept the NRP's word – also very, very, wrong. I don't believe there really is a solution until the CSA are replaced an agency that believes in equality, looks at every case as individual. But until something changes, and let's face it – some NRP's are always going to shirk their responsibilities and some PWC's are always going to be greedy and manipulative – there's sweet fa we can do about it but offer support to each other ….
which PWC would like to borrow a nail driver or a screwhammer!!!???? lol
just a bit of humour at the home front…… lol
Hope no paranoia was awakened there!!!
In response to juliet………… I apologise that I have not responded earlier although I have opened the page and was spending family time with my son. and then watching the recorded soaps…..lol.. Although I accept your comment in reference to I know what is right, I also accept you feel there is no need to reduce myself to their level…Unfortunately ! I do not take the same view of going to levels wether they be higher or lower as I believe in equality, therefore no levels to ascend or descend to!!!This is however! about the exercising of my rights to freedom of speech and therefore should there be comments to debate, I make debate!!!!!I am happy to appear arrogant by clear display of comments although I see it as myself being a bit of a cheeky rebel…. I am quite happy to approach comments and make question to such comments in the same manner as they were applied ( either towards NRP, NRPP and that myself being among that catagory in relation to being accused of being deadbeats.)….. whether they be by direct or sideswiping attack!!!This is in no way supporting an offensive attack but more a tactical deployment to allow the PWC to reveal her attack and defence strategy in reference to her assault on the NRP with small arms sniping!!!However, I am just as good a tactical… verbal sniper!!! and clearly put surrounding shots while the PWC sniper has to reload!!!!!! the final shots are clearly displayed in my ending comments to who'm I'v questioned about their attack methods!!!!!I however prefer to make entertainment to those who have been offended by PWC's with arrogant comments, I am prepared to use the freedom of speech to which both PWC and NRP has entitlement to…. in order to provide such entertainment… Note my targets are only those that choose to make negative comments about NRP's….There is no anger or frustration on my half… I prefer to be direct with my personality being the source of such entertainment…. and believe me… there are many that find my comments entertaining as I have had private messages to that effect to confirm this!!!! Of cause… great for the egotistical, chauvanistic narscsist that dwells inside of me…lolAlthough I appreciate and respect you have your opinions… then please have the respect to accept I am just as entitled to provide an opinion……… as you do, yourself!!!!
In reference to your comments of excuse!!!!! that PWC causes NRP to respond… I quote that I make reference to that "I" respond…..This is because I choose to!!!!! and because I can and therefore, I will!!!Please do not take this as a personal assault on your opinion!!!… you are clearly entitled to believe as you wish… I choose to exercise my right to make and present my own opinions about the posts made on here!!!!!!!!
I was told by the CSA this week that a NRP that has a child with their new partner gets a 15% allowance before any maintenance is calculated, is this not happening then??
Not to my knowledge!!
Further to Juliets comment…. My comment in reference to no longer making CSA payments and the CSA or PWC havent the power to do anything about it was a deployment of a flare to cast light into the dark to light up sniping positions of the PWC who is prepared to send NRP's their criticisms an accusations…. I react to such responses as due their appropriate response made by myself in clear defence of NRP's who are attacked with such comments of negative nature by these PWC's!!!Anyway! night all.. catch yaw'll 2moro!!!