Five resident children and still we pay money to ex for one child
My husband has been told tonight that he has to pay 15% of his wages to his ex for their son. The 5 children that we have between us are entitled to 5% of his wages each before any calculations were made. My husbands ex walked out on him and their child when the child was 3. He brought his son up as a single parent until he met me and my daughter and we started raising our children as a family and my husband came off income support and returned to work.
Because I was ‘NOW ON THE SCENE’ the mother took us to court and a court order of 50/50 residency was agreed (although not liked)… My step son then started to misbehave at school and didn’t like the repercussions at home so decided not to cone to our house anymore.
His mother didn’t give a shit! He was 11 and when we seeked solicitors advice we were told that after paying thousands on legal fees (she got legal aid) we stood no chance of sticking to the court order because of a children’s act… She is on about 15k more than my husband and has her and 2 children to provide for. My husband has me and 5 children to provide for yet still has to pay her 15% of his wages… we don’t see my step anymore.
He’s 15 and although welcome round our house whenever he likes, he only turns up at Christmas and birthdays. This surely is wrong…
58 thoughts on “Five resident children and still we pay money to ex for one child”
Leave a Reply
Julie B11:- They will deduct 25% from his net income before working out the 15%.
So effectively it 15% of 75% of the net income not 15% of net income.
The maximum number of children they consider is 3.
So if you had 3 children the discount would be 25% if you had 9 children the discount would still be 25%.
If their were 3 QCs the CM would be 25%, if there were 9 QCs the CM would be 25%.
Which ever way you do the sums Wilf,
It is wrong.
it is wrong. Morally wrong.
Cant the OP and her husband “split up”, and she make a claim for their children….that way things should even out abit more fairly ?
Stuart:- Please explain.
Morally, Ethically any which way you can. Wrong Wrong Wrong.
Stuart:- Not clear what you mean.
Have a chat with Alice I must be speaking Greek today.
Stuart:- Do mean he should not take responsibility for his son?
Not sure what Stuart is meaning here either – the rates for both QCs and ROCs are the same so I don’t see what is unfair
He did take responsibility for his son when the mother cleared off for 4 years. He had to leave work to care for him… Like I said we paid thousands in legal fees when my husbands ex decided she wanted to play ‘mummy’ again. We are prepared to provide for my step son but he doesn’t want to know us. His mother is more lenient than us so he prefers to stay with her and get away with whatever he wants. So because of a children’s act 19 whatever… He can walk and there is nothing my husband can do about it.
No wilf or Alice, I now do not expect you both to, as you have trouble understanding plain English and only CSA speak. Judging by the last threads we were on.
Like I said let the forum readers decide who is talking nonsense.
Stuart:- So you can not answer a simple question?
What do you mean when you say “it is wrong”?
What specifically is wrong?
Wilf you and Alice must live together.
Nice attempt at humour anyway, Glad you have read how your mate is making herself look dumb on here again. Suprised you have not joined in.
OP Quote;
She is on about 15k more than my husband and has her and 2 children to provide for.
That is wrong matey, Why should A NRP get in debt to pay support to PWC who does not need it.
Ok straight answer
Now give Alice a nudge and see if it can manage one too
Julie B11,
Do you receive child maintenance from your daughters father?
Stuart:- What the PWC earns does not enter the equation.
Every father needs to support their children.
This NRP obviously thought he could afford it as he went on to produce further progeny.
Therefore there should be no debt.
It’s called being responsible.
I hold no brief for Alice.
You followed my post by saying “It is wrong” after I pointed out an anomaly in OP.
I questioned your post and received a nebulous reply.
One I’m sure you would not be satisfied with.
It’s called supporting the child it is not spousal maintenance.
CSA rules do seem to lean towards Carol’s option as the best way. Way to go CSA,
What the PWC earns does not enter the equation.
Well Wilf THAT is what is wrong…………….Get it now. It should. splitting from NRP was her decision too.
Agree contribute for your child, BUT, what you can afford and what is FAIR. as if you lived with them still.
Should you be denied a life because you and your partner split up and had children?
Thats what CSA believe and it is wrong.
Please do not confuse me with someone who believes a NRP should not pay, But what is right and fair is not the CSA despite the rules Yourself and Alice publish, Read the posts I make. I believe in fair open and honest. Alice is incapable of a response to the Question out of the box. You have stood up for her but after today I am amazed anyone can.
And yes there should be no debt……………Unless the CSA cock up and come looking for arrears caused by them.
Stuart are you condoning Carol’s suggestion that the OP contact the agency and state that she and the NRP have separated – would this not mean the lady would be committing fraud?
No Chall as my daughters father is now on a certain benefit which means he is exempt from paying anything. I don’t work at the moment as 2 of my children are young. So my husband provides for my daughter!
Stuart:- When did I stand up for Alice?
I publish no rules , they emanate from the Government.
If you think the %s used are too steep you need to tackle the source, which is parliament through your local MP or a petition.
Do not confuse me with anybody who has anything to do with the CSA.
I do not care who splits from whom but I believe they both need to support their child/ren.
Julie,
Have you ensured whether you are entitled to any assistance?
The link below will take you to the Entitled to website and should give you a rough idea of benefits you could apply for.
http://www.entitledto.co.uk/
He wants to support his child!!! Why would he have paid thousands of pounds at court if he didn’t want to support his child. His child has decided that he doesn’t want his dads support anymore, but his greedy mother who is on more money than us and has less mouths to feed, wants more money and CSA rules say that’s fine.
Alice
Stuart are you condoning Carol’s suggestion that the OP contact the agency and state that she and the NRP have separated – would this not mean the lady would be committing fraud
No Alice your rules you work it out, As A CSA employee you would know all about fraud and not reporting it.
unfortunately the decision on whether financial support is wanted or not does not lie with the child, if the PWC wishes the case to remain open the agency must assess and collect as per the calculation.
Is there any chance that your husband and his ex can come to a private agreement which would mean he was able to contribute financially for his son but not use the agency?
No Alice it lies with the Parents but the CSA withold information to NRP’s and that is why fraud is allowed by PWC as proved on another thread but you will not admit it outright.
Wilf it is not fair the way the CSA operates it is my and many peoples opinions and is a fact, and yes you have stuck up for Alice many times and take forever to understand any point I make so apologies for being short with you but as you can see Alice is two faced and cant answer a simple question, and your i dont understand why it is wrong quote appalled me.
Alice
Stuart are you condoning Carol’s suggestion that the OP contact the agency and state that she and the NRP have separated – would this not mean the lady would be committing fraud
And if she were Alice to get a fair life, the CSA would turn a blind eye, as she is a PWC, as you have admitted so yes she may as well do that as your rules allow it,
Not such a clever comment now was it!!!
Make stupid rules people do stupid things to avoid the stupidity and stupid people think its all ok.
Dear oh Dear
Stuart:- Nowhere have used the word “understand”.
Nor have used the phrase ” i dont understand” or ” why is it wrong”.
You appear to have misquoted me.
Here we go again Wilf wilf on March 24th, 2013 1:45 pm
Stuart:- Not clear what you mean
Sorry I am not as anal as yourself, in my eyes not clear what you mean, means dont understand it was so easy what i meant, everyone else gets it but you, sorry mate i have better things to do than explain the obvious to you every time.
Carol got it and agreed you did not ask her for explanations????
Then get clever with a cant give a straight answer which in my eyes sticks up for Alice a debate you kept out of funny enough.
Read the posts they explain themselves but Alice and you do not understand. Or choose not too whatever it is I really cant be bothered anymore as you are both unable to grasp the concept of CSA rules v The Law. Morals v Reality etc.
Stuart:- I suggest you look up the word”cant”. There that’s anal for you.
Wilf I suggest unless you can add anything to a debate, you have failed to yet, then you keep out the thread.
and great comeback from you. Glad you feel better.
Stuart:- What is so appalling about “Not clear what you mean”?
After all you did not make clear what you thought was wrong.
Read the thread Wilf Read the Thread.
My point about you not getting it proved to a turn.
Stuart:- I understand you have problem with the CSA.
I get it.
You paid for 2 years to a PWC when you shouldn’t have.
Did they backdate the closure?
Did they return the overpayment?
You believe there was a fraud the CSA did not tell you or the police about.
Wilf I have already answered all these questions on many threads.
My point to you is this for a final time.
And I include Alice in this.
I ask a simple question. Everyone understands the question and there is a simple yes or no answer to those.
Alice and yourself then spend forever trying to understand the question or comment.
Everyone else gets it. you two do not and spout rules and regulations fresh from Google or CSA handbooks.
Which in actual fact does not have any relevance to the simple question.
or comment I make. Now this is either deliberate or avoidance of the issue, So no real value added. read todays threads I have spelt it out and spelt it out but the pair of you still dont get what |I am saying.
So have a good long read and come back when you can add value as the pair of you are making yourselves look very silly with your responses that even a chimpanzee could understand what I am saying in each comment. And anyone can see the avoidance Alice is showing when asked a straightforward question. Then says she sees no point in continuing when she mugs herself off every time.
Thanks
Alice
I obviously understand that it’s not my step sons decision when it comes to financial support. It also wasn’t my husbands decision when the mother walked out on both of them when the child was 3. Just like it wasn’t his decision to go to court to maintain some custody when the child was 8. It wasnt his decision for his son to bugger off 2 years ago and leave him powerless to do anything…
But its the csa’s decision to decide how much 3 out of my 5 children are worth compared to a child that decides not to live here anymore? Why 3 and not 5 by the way? My other 2 eat, need clothing, toiletries etc too…
Why are csa payments not used as part of an income either? Don’t get that at all…
Why is there not a means test before the csa decide how much a father can afford each week?
Also my husband has just come up with a great one… His words ‘So I’ve gone from a Dad to a nrp’
Julie that would be to simple for every one the CSA thrive on complicating everything and Alice can not answer straight questions as all NRP are the lowest form of life. A PWC says and the CSA jump and right or wrong make no difference. I would seriously consider Carol’s advice as the only way to live within their rules as a NRP is to look outside them.
Julie,
Do you think your household finances would be a bit better if your ex was not in receipt of ‘certain benefit which means he is exempt from paying anything’?
OH MY….look what we have here
Alice…on about committing fraud, yet if it was a PWC fraudulently claiming child benefit in order to still extort child maintenance, then hey ho, thats ok.
Hypocrite Alice. And so very transparent in your tit for tat with Stuart, as he brought that up in another thread. So please dont start being a keyboard warrior over fraud. The CSA take money such as working tax paid to low income families, from NRPs.
Julie, I totally sympathise with you and your husband. This is about you and your children, do whatever you all have to in order to get by. Whoever is in ‘power’ does not care about your bills, your quality of life, only that your taxes and stealth taxes keep them in two homes and all them little luxuries we can only dream of.
Every child is equal…just some are more equal than others in the eyes of the CSA
If the CSA was a fair, considerate body, then I would not suggest being creative, But when I see the destruction and suffering they cause, I have no qualms about putting my two peneth in…ooo look I mentioned money…the CSAs key word program just set bells off….
@ Carol yes the infamous alice strikes again, im fed up with the crap this woman spouts, its about time she learnt that peoples lives are not statistics for the csa, well not unless your a PWC and need because thats all they care about, The poor NRP (your not allowed the mum or dad names) are degraded to the point they feel like they have no way out, when the words money as you state above are mentioned to csa they are nice as pie, they have got what they want, they dont have to help you anymore, Every child is equal whether it be from the PWC or the NRP side, “we aim to lift every child out of poverty” is what the CSA are suppost to stand for, its the biggest load of bullshit i have heard in my life, the only people that get help are the CSA employees with big bonuses etc, Oh and CSA employees stealing childrens money and putting it into there own account, as we have all established this will never be a fair agency,
not been back to this for a few days due to personal circumstances, but there are a couple of things I would like to state
the issue regarding fraud – at no time have I ever stated that it I consider a PWC claiming CHB fraadulently to be ok – on several threads on this site over the past few months I have stated that any NRP who believes that the PWC in their case is claiming CHB when not entitled to should report this to the CHB fraud office for invesitgation. I have followed this on with the fact that the Govt state that if CHB is in payment the CSA must keep the case open. How that can be construed as me saying it is acceptable for a PWC to commit fraud I fail to see.
the issue over the number of QCs or ROcs in a case – the calculation for both is 15% for 1, 20% for 2 and 25% for 3 or more. If a PWC was claiming for 5 children they would be limited to 25% of the NRP’s income, equally an NRP with 5 children in their household will also be limited to the 25% allowance for these children. This is the limit the Govt set for CSA and this cannot be changed on a case by case basis.
@ Carol, I appreciate that there are several things that were not your partner’s decision, and as you have said he wishes to support his son, but unless the PWC agrees that maintenance for him is paid direct to him – either via CSA direct into his bank account, maintenance direct or by the csa case being closed and a private agreement reached between the PWC and the NRP then your husband will need to continue with his payments to the csa who will then pay the money to the PWC as instructed.
Alice you thick mug the question was and still is claiming child support not CHB why oh why are you such a mug?
CSA do not report this to the NRP or Police.
No answer you can give can protect the CSA here as you know.
So dont play games with me or others as you are not clever enough.
the issue regarding fraud – at no time have I ever stated that it I consider a PWC claiming CHB fraadulently to be ok – on several threads on this site over the past few months I have stated that any NRP who believes that the PWC in their case is claiming CHB when not entitled to should report this to the CHB fraud office for invesitgation. I have followed this on with the fact that the Govt state that if CHB is in payment the CSA must keep the case open. How that can be construed as me saying it is acceptable for a PWC to commit fraud I fail to see.
So with that in mind the CSA not considering a PWC claiming child support whilst not in reciept of CHB and the child not living with them fraud. You MUST consider this fraud too, but the CSA do not. How does that sit with you Alice?
By not answering the question you really do mug yourself off. Are you so dumb as to not understand or just avoiding the obvious. We all await the reply as your goose appears to be cooked on here now.
CHB being in payment is NOT actually a requirement for a child to be a QC. If an NRP reports that the child is no longer in education CSA will check if CHB is still in payment as a guide to check and if it is seen to still be in payment but the NRP thinks it is being claimed fraudulently they will advise the NRP to report possible fraud to the CHB office – CHB have the right to ask the PWC to provide proof that they are entitle to be claiming for that child (and a child may live elsewhere and still be entitled to CHB).
And as previously stated the agency will leave the reporting of any false claim for CM to the NRP, as it is the NRP who is possibly being defrauded.
@ Alice…. are my eyes deceiving me??? did you just write “If an NRP reports that the child is no longer in education CSA will check if CHB is still in payment……they will advise the NRP to report possible fraud to the CHB office “???
Now I know you are brain dead as opposed to brainwhased… the CSA NEVER check and communicate back to the NRP when the PWC is still claiming CB!!! the CSA never pro-actively communicate with the NRP unless it is to demand money FROM them…. lol lol lol you make me laugh…. sincerely 🙂
Alice you are far to thick to even answer the question, you are answering something else, we all know what we are asking you do not , Thats why you work where you do.
CHB being in payment is NOT actually a requirement for a child to be a QC. If an NRP reports that the child is no longer in education CSA will check if CHB is still in payment as a guide to check and if it is seen to still be in payment but the NRP thinks it is being claimed fraudulently they will advise the NRP to report possible fraud to the CHB office – CHB have the right to ask the PWC to provide proof that they are entitle to be claiming for that child (and a child may live elsewhere and still be entitled to CHB).
And as previously stated the agency will leave the reporting of any false claim for CM to the NRP, as it is the NRP who is possibly being defrauded.
Alice how can the NRP report the PWC for benefit fraud when they are not recieving CHB? That is the point you ignore.
The PWC was not in reciept of this and the child did not live with her. Understand? The CSA still allowed her to claim from the NRP. for 2 years. The NRP was unaware and then found out he was paying when he should not be. The CSA discovered it was a fraudelent claim and took no action against the PWC and did not inform the NRP it was fraud why he overpaid. With it so far? They just said it was maladministation and bunged him £50.
Later the NRP is made aware it was a fraudelent claim. Why did the CSA not make the NRP aware at the time and allow the Police to become involved? Why would they cover up this fraud.
So all you have said so far is nonsense and only you can not understand what has happened or answer why CSA would cover up the fraud.
Wilf
Do not confuse me with anybody who has anything to do with the CSA
Sorry mate I already have.