How can the CSA take money from one child for another?
I received a letter from the CSA on the 2/1/13, stating that my son’s assessment for CSA will be £0.00 due to change in his NRP’s circumstances. My son is 14 years old and his NRP has been paying. However, he has now had twins with his partner. The CSA are now saying due to his assessable income been £350.00 per week (after deductions), he has protected income as a result of the twins he had.
My son will now not recieve a penny from him.
My question is how can take they take money from one child’s mouth to feed the other two? Does my child no longer count? Why is he been punished? Does he still not need food, clothes, shelter- Maslow’s hierachy of needs? I wasn’t aware needs topped once the NRP decided he and his partner decided they want children his needs stop.
I spoke with the CSA and argued that this was what they were doing and they were adamant that they weren’t taking money from one child to cater for the new family and it is the assessable income of his household. I just can’t understand how they can consider this fair or reasonable to do this to the very same person their suppose to be protecting and ensuring that the NRP contributes to their everday living. How can they justify taking away £150.00 from my son and giving £0.00 payment! Where is the fairness to my child?
CSA was set upto ensure that the NRP continues to pay for the chid’s every day living not the second family but as you can see in my case it is my son that will have to suffer the consequences of their actions/rules.
5 thoughts on “How can the CSA take money from one child for another?”
Leave a Reply
Melanie:-I think from your post that your case is on the old system old rules where housing costs are taken into account. The best I can advise is that you close your case immediately wait 13 weeks and make a new application. You will then be on the new system where percentage is allowed for children in the household but no housing costs are considered.
if you do as wilf suggests and wait the 13 weeks and get a new case opened on the CS2 scheme the MC would be
nrp net income
less 20% for the 2 children in his housegold
= assessible income
x 15% for 1 QC
less any allowance for shared care
yeh do that as obv you cant get off your ass and provide for him yourself
This so annoys me that people go on to have more children when they dont or wont pay for the one/s they have already. Similar happened to me, that the money my children should have got was halved and given to another woman – whose child was born after mine, she was on benefits and had a child by someone else and knew he wasnt paying for the children he had already. If it was made an offence to have more children when you dont support the ones you have already, would stop a lot of problems.
The whole CSA subject annoys me because it is 100% bias agains decent NRP’s who pay their way!!!
If the CSA had a fairer way to calculate child maintenance then we wouldn’t have half the problems we have…. very few NRP’s don’t want to pay for their kids but 90%of the ones who do WANT to, find it difficult to pay what the CSA dictate and are be able to live at the same time!!!
ALL NRP’s should pay for their children but they NEED to live too!! They have ESSENTIAL overheads the same as the PWC (regardless of how many nights the child stays over!!) so why that isn’t deducted before ANY child maintenance is calculated is beyond me.
@ Karen – I completely see your point but what about all the females who just use men to have kids to avoid working? it might sound nasty but its a fact… should they be forced to have abortions every time they fall pregnant? or be forced to have hysterectomy? Everyone is entitled to have as many kids as they want but the CSA has set up a system that is driven by money and has NRP’s and PWC’s at each others throats…. absolutely NO consideration for what is best for the child (no consideration from the CSA!!).