Jump to content

? re "Non Agency" Child Support payments


  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

#26 Tinkle Splashes

Posted 05 February 2017 - 07:15 PM

View PostFranny and Zooey, on 04 February 2017 - 02:36 PM, said:



Revolting statement and why some parents just shouldn't be parents!  "I am just paying some money and seeing you when I can" - the kids would be better off without them.

It's not a revolting statement when the child support pays more than meets the children's needs. Nothing wrong with it at all.

#27 -Emissary-

Posted 05 February 2017 - 08:41 PM

View PostTinkle Splashes, on 05 February 2017 - 07:15 PM, said:

It's not a revolting statement when the child support pays more than meets the children's needs. Nothing wrong with it at all.

Really? Nothing wrong with a father who pays a crap load of child support but not attempt to see their children more? Like a child's needs is just financial right? Yeah well I'd like to see those people stop b**ching about paying so much child support to the ex wife then.

People have no right to complain about how much child support they're paying when all they are willing to do is pay child support. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Edited by -Emissary-, 05 February 2017 - 08:42 PM.


#28 steppy

Posted 05 February 2017 - 08:51 PM

View PostFranny and Zooey, on 04 February 2017 - 02:36 PM, said:

Revolting statement and why some parents just shouldn't be parents!  "I am just paying some money and seeing you when I can" - the kids would be better off without them.

Yeah, I'm sure this woman and her kids would be so glad not to be receiving the money anymore.

It's simply the legal truth I'm stating. Whoever has 100% custody is 100% responsible for managing costs. They have to be - they have 100% custody. Nobody else can do it.

Just a fact.

The problem I see here is more that the money is not being spent appropriately on the children if their stories are true. Now, if they are really going without food on weekends, I know which parent shouldn't have had children, and it aint the terrible paying parent.

Edited by steppy, 05 February 2017 - 08:53 PM.


#29 steppy

Posted 05 February 2017 - 08:57 PM

View Post-Emissary-, on 05 February 2017 - 08:41 PM, said:

Really? Nothing wrong with a father who pays a crap load of child support but not attempt to see their children more? Like a child's needs is just financial right? Yeah well I'd like to see those people stop b**ching about paying so much child support to the ex wife then.

People have no right to complain about how much child support they're paying when all they are willing to do is pay child support. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Yes well, a lot of the time that's all the other parent wants them to do anyway. It's amazing how many non custodial parents get treated like wallets. Cripes, even guys with significant access who pay CS get a lecture about their failure as a father if they can't just open their magic wallet whenever a kid needs something.

#30 -Emissary-

Posted 05 February 2017 - 09:00 PM

Seriously that's the only problem you see?

How about he takes matters into his own hands and seek more custody of his kids if he's so concerned about their welfare and how they're being feed.

But no, the buck stops at financial right in determining who is a fit parent according to you. No one should have children if they think their parental responsibility is limited to just financials.

#31 steppy

Posted 05 February 2017 - 09:06 PM

View Post-Emissary-, on 05 February 2017 - 09:00 PM, said:

Seriously that's the only problem you see?

How about he takes matters into his own hands and seek more custody of his kids if he's so concerned about their welfare and how they're being feed.

But no, the buck stops at financial right in determining who is a fit parent according to you. No one should have children if they think their parental responsibility is limited to just financials.

Yeah it's the only problem I see. His work affects his access and in addition he may already have a house full of the OPs children (unknown) and this may be the arrangement that works for BOTH parents. His children certainly seem to have contact and a relationship with their father, despite him forking out childcare at a 100% rate as if he has no contact. Of course, he should just get a much lower paying job so he can have regular access - or he and his ex should have just stayed married so he could see them at the unpredictable times his job would allow. But they didn't and he didn't leave his job and he is doing exactly what he is legally required to do in these situations and seeing his children when he can and paying for luxuries for them too. That's actually pretty good really. I'd be pretty happy with an ex like that.

As for the kids living with him - everyone knows at this age it's their choice. If they haven't asked to move in yet, they probably aren't going to.

In the situation described Emissary - why is it so important to you that the mother not be at fault for failing her legal parental responsibility to care 100% for the children and their costs? How is this guy copping flak for not being father of the year because he is totally fulfilling his legal obligations AND going beyond them too.  If she doesn't want to pay for her children with the money she is receiving and earning, why is that up to him to fix? Should he step in and ask to see her costs and start managing her money for her too? No? He can't? Oh yeah - that's right - it's completely out of his control.

Edited by steppy, 05 February 2017 - 09:14 PM.


#32 -Emissary-

Posted 05 February 2017 - 09:13 PM

If it works for both of them then he should stop complaining. Luxuries is above and beyond and if he can't afford it then don't give anymore.

You would be happy with that. I wouldn't be. It's obvious his main priority isn't his kids if he's worried about them and not doing anything beyond child support payments and complaining and looking for ways to reduce the money he has to pay instead of seeking more care.

#33 -Emissary-

Posted 05 February 2017 - 09:15 PM

Then cut their allowance and tell them it'll start up again if they move in with him.

Problem solved.

#34 steppy

Posted 05 February 2017 - 09:22 PM

View Post-Emissary-, on 05 February 2017 - 09:13 PM, said:

If it works for both of them then he should stop complaining. Luxuries is above and beyond and if he can't afford it then don't give anymore.

You would be happy with that. I wouldn't be. It's obvious his main priority isn't his kids if he's worried about them and not doing anything beyond child support payments and complaining and looking for ways to reduce the money he has to pay instead of seeking more care.

Well if you wouldn't be happy with it, perhaps you'd fight for him to have regular access and pay you less. Legally though, with her having 100% custody, he has no other obligations than financial. How can he be in any way responsible when she has 100% custody? That's supposed to mean they are never with him. Also, he isn't complaining, the OP is annoyed by how unfair the situation is. And it is unfair. He is paying twice - either because his children are lying or his ex is sick of being a mother.

#35 -Emissary-

Posted 05 February 2017 - 09:22 PM

View Poststeppy, on 05 February 2017 - 09:06 PM, said:

In the situation described Emissary - why is it so important to you that the mother not be at fault for failing her legal parental responsibility to care 100% for the children and their costs? How is this guy copping flak for not being father of the year because he is totally fulfilling his legal obligations AND going beyond them too.  If she doesn't want to pay for her children with the money she is receiving and earning, why is that up to him to fix? Should he step in and ask to see her costs and start managing her money for her too? No? He can't? Oh yeah - that's right - it's completely out of his control.

And why isn't it important to you that the children be removed from a mother who is supposedly failing her parental responsibility huh? It's all just about money right.

If the children is in danger of being starved to death or in any danger then I'm the first person to advocate their removal off the parent who is failing no matter whether it is the mother or the father.

He is coping flak because he apparently thinks his children are being mistreated and doesn't think his involvement should be more than financial. That's completely and utterly bullsh*t.

If you're so worried about your kids then do something about it. If not both have failed as parents in my eyes.

He is still their parent. He still has control. He just doesn't want to exert it beyond his financial responsibility. He gets absolutely no respect from me for that. Nor does the mother for letting her children starve but we're not exactly debating whether she's getting mother of the year or not.

#36 -Emissary-

Posted 05 February 2017 - 09:27 PM

View Poststeppy, on 05 February 2017 - 09:22 PM, said:

Well if you wouldn't be happy with it, perhaps you'd fight for him to have regular access and pay you less. Legally though, with her having 100% custody, he has no other obligations than financial. How can he be in any way responsible when she has 100% custody? That's supposed to mean they are never with him. Also, he isn't complaining, the OP is annoyed by how unfair the situation is. And it is unfair. He is paying twice - either because his children are lying or his ex is sick of being a mother.

Oh don't worry, I tried. I argued black and blue for my ex to have more access. I even waived all child support for a period of time. Because I truly believe parenting is beyond financial obligations.

100% custody doesn't mean the other parents don't have any parental obligations.

Edited by -Emissary-, 05 February 2017 - 09:28 PM.


#37 steppy

Posted 05 February 2017 - 09:28 PM

View Post-Emissary-, on 05 February 2017 - 09:22 PM, said:

And why isn't it important to you that the children be removed from a mother who is supposedly failing her parental responsibility huh? It's all just about money right.

If the children is in danger of being starved to death or in any danger then I'm the first person to advocate their removal off the parent who is failing no matter whether it is the mother or the father.

He is coping flak because he apparently thinks his children are being mistreated and doesn't think his involvement should be more than financial. That's completely and utterly bullsh*t.

If you're so worried about your kids then do something about it. If not both have failed as parents in my eyes.

He is still their parent. He still has control. He just doesn't want to exert it beyond his financial responsibility. He gets absolutely no respect from me for that. Nor does the mother for letting her children starve but we're not exactly debating whether she's getting mother of the year or not.
I do think the 'children' should be removed but - nobody is going to remove them over this. Nobody. Child Services would just say 'hey they're getting fed every other day of the week - no biggy here'. And if they don't want to go the father doesn't have a leg to stand on. They're old enough to choose. Every court will support their choice.  Which is exactly why he should pull the extra financial support (other than health bills) - they're choosing to stay with the parent who starves them. That's their choice.

#38 steppy

Posted 05 February 2017 - 09:30 PM

View Post-Emissary-, on 05 February 2017 - 09:27 PM, said:


100% custody doesn't mean the other parents don't have any parental obligations.

Parental obligations? Sure. Legal parental obligations? Nope.

Otherwise you could force people to see their children. You can't.

#39 bakesgirls

Posted 05 February 2017 - 09:33 PM

I seriously doubt that children of the age described in the OP are going to remain in a house where they are miserable. They are also beyond the age where courts would force them to live with the paying parent and leave where they are now. I don't see what huge difference the OPs husband can make if the kids aren't interested in changing the situation either. So I fail to see why this then makes the OPs husband a sh*tty father.

Or were their ages missed by PPs?

#40 -Emissary-

Posted 05 February 2017 - 09:35 PM

View Poststeppy, on 05 February 2017 - 09:28 PM, said:

I do think the 'children' should be removed but - nobody is going to remove them over this. Nobody. Child Services would just say 'hey they're getting fed every other day of the week - no biggy here'. And if they don't want to go the father doesn't have a leg to stand on. They're old enough to choose. Every court will support their choice.  Which is exactly why he should pull the extra financial support (other than health bills) - they're choosing to stay with the parent who starves them. That's their choice.

Well then I guess we agree on what he should do if he wants to take matters into his own hands.

But I stand by the fact I don't think paying child support means the responsibility for your children welfare stops there. That's bullsh*t and that makes you a sh*t parent who shouldn't have more kids.

And yeah, that includes parents who refuses to see their children more just because the law can't force them to.

#41 bakesgirls

Posted 05 February 2017 - 09:42 PM

View Post-Emissary-, on 05 February 2017 - 09:35 PM, said:


But I stand by the fact I don't think paying child support means the responsibility for your children welfare stops there. That's bullsh*t and that makes you a sh*t parent who shouldn't have more kids.

And yeah, that includes parents who refuses to see their children more just because the law can't force them to.

I completely agree with you here. My XH is one of these except he doesn't often pay his child support either. And he went on to have another child. But the issue in this thread is that of the amount of child support paid in conjunction with extra funds that are provided. In a legal sense he has met his requirements. In a moral, ethical and parental sense? That's a totally different topic.

#42 steppy

Posted 05 February 2017 - 09:46 PM

Anyway OP yes you can go for non agency payments without the mother's consent for quite a few bills, but definitely for medical bills. She's meant to be paying for that and CSA is fully aware of that fact.

#43 Tinkle Splashes

Posted 05 February 2017 - 11:29 PM

View Post-Emissary-, on 05 February 2017 - 08:41 PM, said:



Really? Nothing wrong with a father who pays a crap load of child support but not attempt to see their children more? Like a child's needs is just financial right? Yeah well I'd like to see those people stop b**ching about paying so much child support to the ex wife then.

People have no right to complain about how much child support they're paying when all they are willing to do is pay child support. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

This father seems to be seeing his kids whenever he can. He seems engaged, aware of what's going on in their lives, concerned for their wellbeing etc.

The time he spends with them doesn't count for child support purposes because it isn't "overnight" time, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't actually spend time with them. He clearly does.

Just because the Child Support Agency doesn't count daytime hours spent with kids for the purpose of assessing percentage care, doesn't mean that the time hasn't been spent or is irrelevant in assessing the effort he is putting in to seeing his kids.

#44 Moneypenny2014

Posted 06 February 2017 - 08:47 AM

Steppy is completely correct in everything she has stated (in our case). DP is seen as a wallet.

And Tinkle Splashes summed it up as well

View PostTinkle Splashes, on 05 February 2017 - 11:29 PM, said:

This father seems to be seeing his kids whenever he can. He seems engaged, aware of what's going on in their lives, concerned for their wellbeing etc.

The time he spends with them doesn't count for child support purposes because it isn't "overnight" time, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't actually spend time with them. He clearly does.

Just because the Child Support Agency doesn't count daytime hours spent with kids for the purpose of assessing percentage care, doesn't mean that the time hasn't been spent or is irrelevant in assessing the effort he is putting in to seeing his kids.

To give you an example of the above, DP worked the last 3 days straight (leave home 3:30am and getting home at 8pm - actually the middle day he got home at 9:30pm because his shift was lengthened). He is now working night shift tonight and tomorrow night meaning he has to leave home by 3:30pm. His DD18 is in year 12 and because of the way her subjects are structured she has a free period at 11:15 today. As such, he is going over to the school to see her for the 50 minutes or however long her free period is and they will grab a coffee at a little cafe straight over the road. He wont get to see his son however who is in Year 10 and doesn't have flexible time like his sister does. He calls them every single night and sees them whenever he can which is often difficult when you take into consideration his long hours, their school hours and the fact that his daughter also works casually on the weekend. He does everything possible to see his children in the time they have available but he can spend 10 hours straight during the day with them and it wont count because they didn't stay overnight. In my opinion time during the day has far more weight than any overnight visit where he and the children would be asleep and have no interaction whatsoever, or where they would be waking up to him having left for work in the middle of the night and having to navigate their way around our small and busy house (I have 4 children) as we all get ready for the day ahead. For the record I get on very well with his kids and his son especially is in the same "group" at school as my DD - they are great friends - but putting his kids in our cramped house and especially without their Dad being there, well, I'm, sure they'd rather be in their own huge home where they don't have to share a bathroom with 4 other kids. Their house is also in a very nice, slightly upmarket, part of town and its huge. Our house is beautiful (well in my eyes it is!) don't get me wrong but there is a big difference in size!

Yes, he could give up his job and find something local, however his job and the qualifications and training he has are extremely specialised (Government Security). Employment in our small rural town would be of a completely different vocation altogether with much much less pay. He has thought about applying to take a year of leave without pay and doing something else, however following the divorce he is trying to save for a house and getting another job with less pay would just make this so much harder. He is 53 and at this stage in life you its sad to have to start all again.

Whilst he earns quite a good income the other silly part is that he cannot even afford to get a mortgage in our local area for the most basic house using his divorce settlement money which was minimal and income because the child support reduces his wages so much.

He is counting down the days with DD almost turning 18 and his DS15 wanting to leave school next year and get an Apprenticeship. There is light at the end of the tunnel but its unfair in the meantime.

#45 librarygeek

Posted 06 February 2017 - 08:56 AM

If you've got less than 14% custody, then you can claim for prescribed (medical, school, etc) payments - and the custodial parent doesn't have to consent.  However in our experience when we have claimed, BM has objected and we've had to her appeal her objection to have the prescribed payments credited because CSA can't seem to apply their own rules consistently.  We have claimed medical costs (gap only) and also school fees/books/uniforms.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

 
 
Advertisement
 

Top 5 Viewed Articles

 
Advertisement
 
 
 
Advertisement
 
 
Essential Baby and Essential Kids is the place to find parenting information and parenting support relating to conception, pregnancy, birth, babies, toddlers, kids, maternity, family budgeting, family travel, nutrition and wellbeing, family entertainment, kids entertainment, tips for the family home, child-friendly recipes and parenting. Try our pregnancy due date calculator to determine your due date, or our ovulation calculator to predict ovulation and your fertile period. Our pregnancy week by week guide shows your baby's stages of development. Access our very active mum's discussion groups in the Essential Baby forums or the Essential Kids forums to talk to mums about conception, pregnancy, birth, babies, toddlers, kids and parenting lifestyle. Essential Baby also offers a baby names database of more than 22,000 baby names, popular baby names, boys' names, girls' names and baby names advice in our baby names forum. Essential Kids features a range of free printable worksheets for kids from preschool years through to primary school years. For the latest baby clothes, maternity clothes, maternity accessories, toddler products, kids toys and kids clothing, breastfeeding and other parenting resources, check out Essential Baby and Essential Kids.