Why is only overnight contact considered shared care??

December 1, 2013

I am a NRPP (non resident parent’s partner). Why is it that shared care is only classed as shared if it’s overnight???

So if a NRP has the kids from 8am to 8pm – feeds them 3 times, entertains them, taking them places etc,  which is more expense, it’s not classed as shared care and no £ is deducted from the CSA payments. Yet if the NRP had the kids from say 6pm to 8am then that’s classed as shared care, even though only an eve meal and a bed are provided!!

UNFAIR! Especially if the PWC does not allow the kids to stay overnight, as the PWC knows they will get less ££ from CSA!!

Sadly it’s been 3 yrs since NRP had/saw his kids (she poisoned kids parental alienation!) and when she first went to CSA in 2010 is when the overnights stopped, well shortly after. Yet he was having them for a full day/full days at weekends!




  • Marcus Lasance says:

    It could possibly be because the PWC needs a larger house, say with two extra bedrooms and she/he can’t rent them out just because the NRP sees his/her kids for a few hours during the day? I have had my two daughters every weekend after my divorce ( two full days and nights each week plus holidays) and never dreamt of docking my ex’s allowance. I felt it was a privilege! If you can’t afford a family don’t start one. If you don’t embrace your partner’s kids, what are you doing with him? If you can’t afford a divorce stay together. We all come with baggage. I am sure you did NRPP!

  • Mr.Whitey says:

    “It could possibly be because the PWC needs a larger house, say with two extra bedrooms and she/he can’t rent them out…”

    I may be missing something here, but why would the PWC need a larger house?

  • Mrs Beckham 2 says:

    Lucky you not having a vindictive poisonous PWC who after realising she would get a 7th of the CSA £ docked if he (NRP) had his kids more than one overnight per week, then stopped overnight contact altogether, but was ok with him having the kids dawn til dusk in school holidays…which he did not object to at all because he loves them!!!…
    once his kids became fond of me, she …the PWC poisoned them against us both…putting the little girl on the phone ‘if you go to a solicitor daddy I never want to see you ever again’ aged 8!!
    so you might be thinking why doesn’t the NRP apply to the court for a contact order, if (which is basically 100% certain she would) the nasty PWC breaches and the only thing that can be done is the police then go and ‘remove’ the kids from the PWC and give them to NRP… for the sake of the kids he did not want them to go through that. He tried to end his life over it, and I don’t consider his kids or anyone’s kids ‘baggage’!!
    More needs to be done to stop this twisted vindictive behaviour that a LOT of PWC have….using the kids as weapons. Who suffers most……??? The children. Read Dr Amy Baker’s book Adult Children of Parental Alienation – Breaking the Ties That Bind.

  • Mrs Beckham 2 says:

    Mr Whitely,
    The NRP still would like a bedroom each for his/her kids wouldn’t they?? Presuming the NRP is lucky enough to be allowed access and overnight contact!!

  • Gonk says:

    What complete and utter bollocks you spew Marcus Lasance.
    I cannot believe the garbage this twat is speaking.
    “if you can’t afford a family don’t start one” ???? What kinda of utter bollocks is this comment all about.
    And this is laughable ” if you can’t afford divorce,stay together” WTF planet are you from? You think it’s that simple do you? I suspect you have no problem with money and have a healthy income and can quite easily afford without question what ever your ex wants for your kids. Not all of us can afford what ex’s demand of us and it’s got fuck all to do with don’t have kids if you can’t afford them or not divorcing because an ex has being screwing around behind your back and you should stay together because you don’t have the money to get divorced….you complete arsewipe !!!!!

  • Mrs Beckham 2 says:

    @ Gonk, I think the CSA need to change how it views shared care, and face the facts that many thousands of PWC’s refuse overnight contact because they know they will get a 7th of their ££ deducted. The CSA should address this ‘pay per view’ situation that many PWC’s have adopted, and change the definition of shared care to hours per week, or month (as some NRP’s work shifts and one week may be less contact than the next week). Isn’t this a fairer way? And would it not stop the poor NRP’s being refused overnight contact?

    Mind you…knowing some vindictive and pure evil PWC’s (as in my partner’s ex!) they would cut the hours of shared care to ‘below’ the threshold…so they don’t lose any ££!

  • Marcus Lasance says:

    Gonk, you have such a lovely way with words, but filling you posts with expletives does not make them true or powerful. Of course I would not advocate setting some sort of earnings threshold before people are given a licence to have kids. Some loving low income families do a much better job of raising kids than some middle class families that confuse love with spoiling their kids.

    But some feckless NRPs think they are entitled just to walk away from a failing relationship and its their god given right to use the state as a safety net for their kids while they go on and claim the right to make the same mistakes all over again?
    Yet they have the audacity to call the PWCs left behind in poverty a cash cow? Who is milking who in these cases? It’s true we all are coloured by our personal experiences. My personal experience with an NRP ( my wife’s ex) is that all he left her with is a load of debts and the address where she should sign on while he moved in with his new girlfriend. Sorry but rich or poor, that’s just not my way. if that makes me an ‘arsewipe’ in Gonk’s bitter twisted view of the world I will wear that badge with pride. Not all PWCs are fat slags, not all NRPs are poor misunderstood victims.

  • Gonk says:

    You are indeed an arsewipe and I would gladly pin that badge on you if you furnish me with your address.
    You live in cloud cuckoo land and need to wipe the brown stuff out of your eyes. I agree 100% with you about the dodging scum bag fathers that avoid supporting their kids. THEY are not the reason I rant on here. I rant on here because of how unfair and unjust and how biased the CSA is towards the pwc. How it bleeds fathers of his earnings to give to the ex BUT the he has no say on how or even if his money is even spent on his kids. Here’s my situation. I’m forced to pay an ex £320 per month for my daughter. Her other daughters father pays sweet f**k all because she didn’t even put a claim in on him, you think that’s fair Marcus ? She also has a full time working partner whom SHE left me for to be with him,her choice not mine. How’s it ok that it takes 2 to make that child but only the father is screwed for maintenance each month,what happened to 50/50 ? Why is not her earnings and his for that matter taken into consideration? How come the £320 is not split down the middle. How come a Nrp is forced to subsidize an ex’s income along with her other daughter and her partner and in FULL. Even when a mother stops visits, she still entitled with full blessing from the CSA to take my money, you think that’s right Marcus…morally or otherwise? You think it’s right ? How is it fair that a pwc could be earning a better wage than the Nrp and have a working partner BUT the Nrp is still bled full amount payable BUT if the Nrp was earning top salary …he would be expected to pay even more. I’m pretty dam sure that the mother would soon start bitching to the CSA if they decided to reduce her CSA payments to reflect what her partner brings into the household, but if the pwc found out the Nrp has a new partner living with him and bringing in a salary ? She feel it her right to contact the CSA for a slice of his partners salary to top up her household on top of what she already gets. How is it right that a NRP’s partner’s kids child tax credits are taken into account and given to his ex. The whole system is totally unfair and what I’m ranting on about only scratches the surface of this vial agency.And when I read some of the garbage that people like you post…..lol…well…you are red rag to a bull

  • Mrs Beckham 2 says:

    I think that children are not the ‘property’ of one or the other parent. Both parents are what a child wants and needs in his/her life (unless there is abuse!!)

    The CSA needs to make ONE change. That is to assume ALL CASES have 50/50 shared care between NRP and PWC and make the assessments accordingly! That would stop the manipulative and vindictive PWC from stopping access, as there would be no financial gain! The child would be happier too!! The ONLY time there should be a variation is if there is abuse, and that cuts both ways…NRP or PWC!

    A child would NEVER cut one parent out of his/her life…it would have to be taught to him/her!

  • Marcus Lasance says:

    @Gonk it does look like you got a tough deal and no it’s not morally right for your ex to stop visits, but it does not give you the right to use uncouth language against people you barely know. The money you spend is for daughter, but I can see how you are weary some of it is spent on this other man’s child who seems to pay nothing. In the same vein it upset me I forked out an even higher amount for my daughters while I saw nothing coming back for my two step children except postcards from Bondi beach and the occasional glimpse of a Mercedes parked around the corner. And yes I have been successful and all this hasn’t caused me financial hardship, but I feel I have nothing to apologise about if I now have this particular NRP by the short and curlies with a DEO slapped on his sorry arse.

    In the end quite a few of the things you rant about are not in the remit of the CSA to fix, even if that organisation was functioning so maybe turn your anger into something more positive, like planning for the day when your daughter will open her eyes and comes looking for you again!

  • >