New CSA rules totally unfair to parent with care!!

July 19, 2011

I live in Scotland & my ex-hub in England. After 11 yrs of non-payment my daughter got in touch with the csa (she didnt think it fair her dad pays for his other daughter and not her or her brother)…long story short,he has tried every trick in the book to get payments reduced & fought tooth & nail with the csa throughout (they ended up getting an attachment of earnings order)…to get the payments reduced,as well as refusing to give details, delaying the process, he is now making payment through them for his other daughter because i wouldnt budge on the weekly amount the csa set (hed had a private arrangement for his other kid which the CSA didnt take into account when they worked out the amount he was due me),he also tried to apply for travel costs to send his kids home from visiting him,which were extortionate & even at that my costs to send them to his place are greater (as i dont drive),but this application got rejected.

Anyway, i have now been waiting over 4 months for a payment & have just been informed today that yet again payments will be reduced (which means more delays in receiving anything) because he has moved his girlfriend in with her 3 kids!!

I called them & asked why it had been reduced when the kids arent even his & she works (40-50k a yr job) & i was told they dont take her wages into account, “why should she pay for her partners kids” (their words, which i totally get,but read on..)…ok if thats the case then why is HE paying for kids that arent his??…uggggghhh is all i got on the phone. i quizzed them further with “ he works to provide for his kids AND her kids and she works to provide solely for her kids because she doesnt have to pay for someone else’s!!hmmm so how is that fair??isnt that double standards ie one rule for one but not the other??” all i got as a reply was “thats the law im afraid”!!WTF!!A pretty screwed up law,she doesnt have to help pay maintenance for his kids,but he has to pay for hers!!!oh & maintenance is to help towards everyday costs of the children, so how are mine any less in need than hers??Just because they live with him & his own kids dont!! If his partner wasnt working fair enough, but between them they are on over £1200 per wk!

If she shouldnt have to pay for his kids then why the hell is he having to pay for hers???(sorry if repeating but im just a tad annoyed) this new law is totally ridiculous…why didnt they change it to…if the new partner works, whether they have kids or not, there is no change to the rate of maintenance or weekly household income amount ie their wages are not even taken into consideration & neither is the fact they have kids, whether living in the same household or not…end of!! Rates are affected IF the new partner does not work & has kids living in same household! THEN the maintenance rate/payment should be reduced accordingly, but the CSA should also take into account other factors,like is the new partner receiving maintenance payments for his/her children, as well as the other factors currently in place ie money from rental properties etc etc, as this is income that can be/is meant to be used towards the upkeep of the children!!If the parent who has to pay maintenance is the biological parent of the child(ren) living in the household then again, the rate should be reduced to reflect this!!

The CSA have been nice & helpful to me to an extent,but this “rule” is complete and utter codswallop & its double standards..again, why should she not have to pay for his kids,but he has to pay for hers??

im dumbfounded and extrememly annoyed!!But to clarify things, no I do NOT think she should have to pay for his kids,i have never agreed with that law (thankfully its been abolished) BUT i do object to my ex having to provide for her kids,when she works & is providing for her kids already, which in essence is doing my kids out of money…unlike him i cant afford to have luxury holidays away or a big fancy car & caravan and moreso now the payments have been reduced further!!Its tripe!!

Make up your mind CSA, either take the partners wages into account (which i dont agree with) or dont take them into account!!Either way dont take into account the fact they have kids living in the same household if they work!!

its not fair taking their wages into account (which you obviously agreed with by changing the rule) but its certainly not fair to take into account other children living in the household that arent even the absent parents kids, moreso when the partner works to provide for them already!!:(

there rant over!!


  • karen bedford says:

    I understand about other children as my ex had other children too and all the money I should have got for my children was shared with her!

    These scumbags get on my nerves and anyone having a child with someone who already has children and doesnt pay to support them doesnt deserve to have money for theirs, there are plenty of other men out there who are decent.

    You shouldnt have other children if you cant afford to pay for the ones you have already, fact!

  • Queen says:

    This happens all the time when custodial parents shack up with or marry someone else, collecting support from him, while the noncustodial parent continues to pay child support. If you love your child, take your own responsibilty and pay for the child. STOP COMPLAINING AND ACTUALLY BE THE STRONG LOVING MOTHER YOU CLAIM TO BE

  • AM says:


    I do take responsibility for my children & i have done from day one,so who are you to judge me??? It is the father,the non-custodial one,who hasnt taken responsibility and instead has bent over backwards to avoid helping towards his childrens upbringing!!yet feels obliged to pay for his other child (to which his 2nd wife left him!!) AND pay for children that arent even his, & i might add he moved his current gf in all to reduce my payments (he’d promised our son faithfully tht she wouldnt be moving in for months,not days,after him relocating again!!)!!what kind of a man does that???and he is the one claiming to be a good dad,when he doesnt even stand up to his responsibilities & instead chooses to take big holidays (with out his children) & buy big fancy cars,all the while pleading poverty!!

    I can only assume from your unfounded comment,that you yourself are in a relationship with a guy who is a non-resident parent & that you have kids too…if not then who are you to comment on such matters??

    Unless you have walked in my shoes & had to face the difficulties i have,then please think a bit more before you type such trash!!

    I am a loving strong mother,stronger & more loving than most…and i do my job as a parent each and every day, so i dont see why he,as a father, should get away with his role as a parent!!

  • Lorraine says:

    The CSA have different rules everytime, every case in my opinion. My husband has 3 children from his previous marriage and has to day paid £50k+ never refused and neither should he. They are his children, however I had an issue with the CSA threatening me with legal action in order to gain my employer and salary info. We had no children and I had none from any other relationship so I am not paying for his kids. My money was paying off the debt he and his ex racked up while they were still married cos he was struggling to pay. Fast forward 6 years and we had a child of our own, by now he was only paying for two. Our child was on the higher rate of Child Benefit as she was our first, the other two were on the lower as they were the younger so the CSA added all three up and divided it by 3! We are told it is our problem that we are struggling to make ends meet, our payments are high due to a number of financial reasons. The thing that galls me is that his ex has sent 2 of the eldest for driving lessons and both now have cars and go on holiday a few times a year but they are quite happy for us to struggle and share our childs money with his ex. I do not work as we could not afford child care in our area it wiped out my wages completley. Meanwhile his ex still gets a carers allowance from us and her wages/benefits cannot be taken into account.

  • AM says:

    @ Lorraine

    thats totally ridiculous…this is unfair,and i totally dont agree with the partner of the NRP having to pay for the other kids at all…it sounds like you are on the old rules where this was the case.

    Try reapply yourselves on the new rules,cant hurt to try, as they cant take your wages/child tax/working tax credits (if the latter goes direct to you) into account nor can they take the child benefit you receive in your name into account.

    Its all a load of rubbish….i have now been informed that my ex hub has 9 months to pay off the arrears and is paying them direct so ill get payment quicker…ooooo lucky me…not! As he is able to pay them direct now,as opposed to it coming from his wages (as it was supposed to be) he can pay what he likes & ill just have to live with that! yes if he doesnt pay the agreed amount he will incur more arrears but if he knows he’s going to be granted a longer term to pay them over,i dont think he’ll care. I have written to the CSA for an explanation anyway, as i have been informed, that he cannot pay direct to them if a DEO has been put in place, until all the said arrears are paid off in full…plus its only meant to be 3-4 payments til arrears paid, unless it is a reallllly stupid amount (which this isnt) or payment is to be made in full.

    Makes me laugh to, he was pleading poverty cpl of weeks ago, but has somehow managed to swan off to Spain with himself,girlfriend and 5 kids!!Bet that wont come cheap, yet hes too cheap to pay for his kids…wish all men were like your husband & live up to their responsibilities.

    I sincerely wish you all the luck in the world with getting this sorted Lorraine xx

  • lisa says:

    I dont see what the problem is, your ex is getting on with his life, so what he helps towrds the household he is living in??? is he not suppost to feed himself or contribute towards gas electric ETC, Jealousy is a big thing when it comes to ex,s and money, why not speak to him like a human being and work things out for the sake of your kids if money is such an issue, CSA shouldt bring an ex,s partner into the equation, why should she pay for your kids, and even if they do reduce his payments its because he lives with children, its what the government called not putting the second family into poverty

  • Jo says:

    Sounds to me you’re jealous that your ex has moved on!

    My hysband is step dad to my kids and helps support them because he is very much a part of our household. Biology doesn’t come into it when you’re living as a family.

  • Peach says:

    My current partner, who i have been with for 10 years, has paid consistently for his kids, along with paying for trips, school uniform, computers etc. His ex told him from day 1 that he could only have the kids overnight every other week or her payments will reduce. He was also told that if he didnt pay for x,y and z, or do something that she wanted him to do, he wouldnt see them at all. We have them for a few evenings a week and we have them in all of our holidays and take them to nice places that we work all year for. We also have 2 other children, one being severely disabled. Just for the record, she cheated on him numerous times with numerous men, inevitably why they split up, yet she holds all the cards and dictates when he can or cant see the children. We are more than happy to pay for what the kids need, but much less happy when she is out getting lashed most nights, treating the kids badly and we also seem to be funding her current fellas love of fast cars. My wages dont get taken into account through the csa, but i pay for anything any of the kids need as they are my stepchildren and am happy that they get the money for themselves instead of their greedy waster of a mother getting my money for hard partying.
    Sometimes the absent father is a deadbeat dad and a disgrace, but sometimes the mothers are just greedy, nasty control freaks who make their kids suffer to get revenge on the father who truly cares for his children and is a better parent and should have custody of the kids. But unfortunately, the mother gets the automatic right to keep the children with her. I dont think partners income should be taken into account by csa, but on the flip side, a step-parent has taken on the family, not just the partner. And the step-children should be supported as their own children. Its just unfair that some csa ruling means that the father cant see their children as much as the mother doesnt want to lose the money. Its a shame when the greed comes before the childrens wellbeing.

  • >