Partner pays CSA despite having no access to children

October 12, 2012

My partner has 1 child with his ex…We now have 4 together….He brought up his exs other child too when they were together for 10 years…Now they are not together she took him to court to stop him having access…saying she thinks he will run off with the kids!…

Anyway we get a letter about once a year from cm saying about cm and on asking her about it she absolutely denies she is going through csa as he doesnt get to see the child…so now 5 years on..we get hit with csa taking money from his wages direct ….and we need to pay far far more than we can afford..but they are also taking into account our kids tax credits which we get for Our children…but when she makes a claim for tax credits she does not need to declare the £136 per WEEK we are paying her!…

Plus she has her boyfriend who she was with well before my partner left her..he works full time…so basically fathers who have wives who screw around behind their backs will have to just stay and put up with it or if leaving then accept a life of poverty for yourself, new partner and kids.

It is all a total sham!


  • Karen says:

    Hi, I am just getting my head round the whole tax credits thing – ie seeming to ‘steal’ from one child to give to another in a ‘first’ family but upon reading the directgov website I have found this. Working tax credits is given to a household to bring a low income up to an acceptable standard of living. If your income through employment was to go up (say you had a big pay rise or a new better paid job) your entitlement WTC would go down on a sliding scale to account for the increase. Therefore, rightly or wrongly the law just looks at the NRP income as a whole, regardless of where the money actually comes from and thats why its taken into account for CSA purposes. I think if CTC & WTC were named something else it would possibly feel a bit less like stealing from one child to pay for another, although the outcome would be the same.

    So I suppose Im saying that you would still be paying the same amount of CSA based on your income wther you earn it yourself or are supplemented by the government by way of benefits. This is my understanding anyway. You raise an interesting question about the PWC not having to declare this maintenance payment, as in effect she will be getting double, and it is costing the government more money at the end of the day, she should have her own CTC & WTC reduced as a result IMO, but those are the rules as stupid as they are.

  • Alice says:

    the fact remains that he has a child and he has a legal and moral responsibility to support that child financially. You say that you received a letter each year about child maintenance and that you spoke to your partner’s ex about this – did you at any time contact the csa to ask about it? If he had contacted the agency they would have confirmed that there was an active case and he would have been asked to start making regular payments and he would not have accrued arrears over a number of years. The CSA can legally take up to 40% of a person’s wages to cover regular maintenance and arrears. If, even by taking the maximum 40%, the outstanding arrears are not going to be cleared in a 2 year period they can apply for a Liability Order or take other enforcement action to recover the debt. If the CSA have imposed a DEO at 40% it is possible that they will renegotiate this with your partner if he calls, but bear in mind that the debt needs to be recovered within the 2 year period.

    Child Maintenance is not payable only if a person has access.

    Child Tax Credits and Working Tax Credits (if payable in respect of your partner being the primary earner) will be counted as income and will be used for the purpose of calculating his liability for CM – these are tax free benefits and although it is commonly argued that Child Tax Credits should not be used as these are payable for children you partner will get an allowance deducted from his total income in respect of the children in his household whether they are his biological children or not – the counter arguement is that a non resident parent’s liability is reduced so as he can afford to support someone else’s child/children over his own.

    The Parent With Care’s income is not a variable in assessing what the Non Resident Parent pays.

  • time will tell says:

    Hi, we are in a similar situation to you, and I find it totally sucks, but have got to the point of acceptance, as in reality there is absolutely nothing you can do to fight the csa, there always right!! even though the system is totally wrong!! and you’ll find that they will keep moving the goal posts, I wouldn’t be surprised to end up paying cm until the age of 25, joke or what!!

    In response to Alice….

    I do not agree that child tax credits should be used as income, I feel its totally disgusting that they are allowed!! why is it, that the first born children from the nrp are more important than the second families! why is it that they are considered more important than the children from the new relationship, and its regarded a total crime that they should receive less money!!! but what about the children in the second family, do they not matter??

    they end up being punished, just because their dad had a relationship before!!! and in some circumstances are left with no money to live on, let alone money for trips, clothes or even to the point of buying fresh food, so the money given by the government to the second families to ensure a standard of living for the children, one where they are not in poverty, is totally disregarded and used yet again to make sure the first born children are looked after, to hell with the our children, they don’t matter, just as long as my husband pays for his ex wife and his first born children…….

    It seems to me that this system is saying that men are not allowed another life after their first marriages and children…….

    I understand that there is a moral and legal responsibility to the first born children, and agree maintenance should be paid, but it should be a fair amount based on each individuals circumstances, and money from tax credits should NOT be used to calculate maintenance payments…..

    As for arrears having to be paid back within two years, I think you’ll find that is just a scare tactic used by the csa and they cannot legally enforce this, just like when they told me they was going to send the bailiffs round for our arrears and would be removing my children’s things, including their beds LoL needless to say I contacted my MP and he sorted that part out for us 😉

    To the original poster…

    Have you contacted your MP and asked them to look into your case, they cant do much, but the csa do not like this, it means they really do have to play by the book, for a while at least…..also request ‘all’ information the csa hold on your case under the data protection act, they have 40days to garnish you with this, not working days as they will lead you to believe…also take your case to the tribunal, get them to look over it, also state the human rights of your children have been neglected by this company (csa), you never know, you may be able to get them to reduce your payments and even wipe the arrears, if they have calculated them wrong!!

    I wish you luck 🙂 and hope that one day someone with half a brain creates a new fairer system for ALL the children unlucky enough to be caught up in this mess….

  • time will tell says:

    Also one more thing…

    If my husband lived on his own, his maintenance payments would be £78 per month based on his wages alone but because we are together and have children our maintenance payments are £294.66 per month, so in-effect they are taking £216.66 from my children. Great system…..NOT

  • >