CSA, I just don't get it(read on)?

Question

I'm a working mum of 2yr old daughter+6yr old step-daughter. Me+my partner have fully supported my step-daughter forever.
Fair do's, I really don't get on with his ex.This is mainly because I don't agree with her lifestyle(claims to be a single parent-she's not,never worked, benefit fraud,etc.. basic social scum).
As she has had another baby with(yet another) partner, she was cont by CSA. And we must now start paying money to the government(this money is to cover the income support she receives each month).
My grievance is NOT with paying the money. BUT with the fact that if she worked this would not be an issue+we would be able to carry on the way we were doing it before(we supply all her clothes,shoes,school uniform+other stuff). We now are paying money, so we can't afford to buy these things for her. But neither can her mother as she is getting the same as she was before from her benefits.
Basically, why should we all pay for the mothers simple choice of not working?

Pls can all the yanks stop answering. This is a deeply British thing. Just go away, I don't care for your answers.

JENNY PLS E-MAIL ME. I WANNA TALK!

Answer 1

Unfortunately even if she did work the money would still have to be paid. My partners ex earns more than we do put together but we can't even afford loo rol by the end of the month because he has to pay her several hundred quid a month, even though they previously had a good informal agreement.

I have ended up taking two jobs to help support him in order to maintain his CSA payments, meanwhile, she is swanning around in a car we are also still paying for, £380 a month (she got him to take out a £20,000 loans two months before she ran off with a tarmacker), in a house kitted with funiture we are also still paying for, while going on holiday every couple of months, with the money we are giving them.

We don't mind paying the money to support the children, but he has only been able to see them 4 times in the last 3 years and we've spent £2500 in solicitors bills trying to get things sorted.

All the time she has a nice easy job, earning £3000 a month and no bills because we are paying for them. Meanwhile, we are renting the cheapest place we can afford, working every day we can and basically having no life, and still not seeing the children.

The CSA is vastly unfair in some cases, and doesn't care about what the parent with residence earns compared to the parent with out residence, they also don't take into account the debts from the previous relationship and treat all parents with out residence like scum.

But having said that, I have built up a good relationship with our CSA case worker and she gives us lots of tips and help on how to get a payment reduced, mainly because she has dealt with my partners ex and knows she is scum and trying to bleed him dry. So be nice to the people on the phone, they are only people at the end of the day, I wouldn't want to be helpful to anyone that spoke to me like crap, and you might get some where. Good Luck.

By the way, there is nothing legal about them asking about your wages as his partner and taking them into account. They try it on to try and get extra money, but they have no right to have any links with a seperate partners money and earnings. Bear this in mind, when I mentioned that we might get married, the CSA asked what my earning were for their calculations, When I refused and asked if it was a legal requirement, they informed me it was optional!!!! They weren't going to volunteer that!

Answer 2

I absolutely agree with what your saying its stupid, Im sure the people who run the CSA have no idea on any of these situations, I understand they are there to protect some people ie single mothers with no chance of working cos childcare costs so much, but they dont seem to work out the individuals situation. Really there is no reason she should not be working because your step daughter is 6 and in full time school, sounds like she wants the money for herself and for you not to have choices of what your stepdaughter gets material wise.

Answer 3

I am in exactly the same situation, My husbands ex doenot work and claims benefits (even though she has her partner living with her who works)
Like you have we have always bought everything for the kids clothes shoes etc, but then she decided she wanted csa involved my husband said he would give her 50per week if they keep csa out of it but she didnt want that so now he pays £400 a month for nothing as the money goes from csa straight to the DSS to pay her rent etc, how is that fair!!

Now the children are missing out big time she still wants us to buy things for the children but we can no longer affoard to.

she makes remarks about mine and my husbands jobs and says we can clearly affoard to buy the kids certain things as we work!! Why doesn't she get off her *** and get a job herself then she would receive the full CSA amount and have money coming in that she has earnt herself.

I can see both sides of the CSA as i receive it from my ex husband but at least i work so the full amount he pays goes on the our child.

Answer 4

I'm not quite sure I understand your question... are you saying why do we as a society decide to pay assistance to people who choose not to work? You are not paying anyting specifically, directly to your partner's ex, right?

The answer to that question is: We don't want kids to starve. It has very little to do with Mom, but instead our view that children who have parents who can't / won't get a job shouldn't be cast aside and left for dead.
That said, the federal welfare reform that was passed under the Clinton administration basically ended the welfare mother... much assistance is cut off after a short time unless the woman takes steps toward working, etc.

If this woman is really cheating the system, lying about a disability, etc., and you have concrete proof thereof, there's always the option of turning her in and/or reporting her to child services.

There will certainly always be people who abuse the social safety net. That does not mean, however, that the idea is bad in general. (Just because we have a president who is over-militaristic and invades countries without good cause doesn't mean that I want the U.S. to have no army at all...)

Answer 5

As exactly welcome to the welfare state!

People wanted New Labour and this is what you get!
I have never voted for them so dont blame me.

A simple solution is to reduce benefits and scrap some of them.
Bill Clinton did a similar thing with the USA's unemployment benefit and the liberal left were crying you can't do that people will starve, etc., etc.

However levels of unemployment went down because people suddenly discovered they were better of working then simply claiming benefits.

As it is I know people who have decided they would be better off claiming benefits than working in say McDonald's, etc.

Answer 6

Ah, the joys of socialism.

... just remember that the money you earn is not yours, but the government's - you should be grateful for whatever they allow you to keep.

This worked so well in the USSR, after all.

Answer 7

Think you will find another 50,000 single fathers out there behind you on that one , me included

Answer 8

Welcome to the Liberal socal services ideals. Sorry it sucks but wealth resdistribution has no intrest in hours worked.