csa grrrrrr

A question about : csa grrrrrr

Oh well, for all you lucky people whose children turned 19 from sept onwards, good news!!!! the csa is raised to 20 as from december the tenth. It is applicable to all children under 20 including our lot who left the system from sept. Great news eh!!!!

Best answers:

• Disastrous for those parents that had court orders to sell the house when child left school or full time education at 19 and have taken on new financial commitments.They will still have to meet CSA payments & wait longer to get their share of the marital home they have been waiting until the children had grown up & put their life on hold for.
• Unless the resident parent gets child benefit how will they apply these new rules?
• it would apply to "children" who are in full time education jones, reaching certain criteria, so it would only apply to those who are still entitled to child benefit. To say im am gutted is an understatement!!
• Its shocking,it started at 16,now its 20.How long before its decided its 21,22,23.....
  Just to squeeze more money out of people.I thought it was child,not adult "suppport".What a joke!
  And the old proverb springs to mind-put up with it-get more of it!
• This makes perfect sense to me.
  When the CSA was first established many people left school at 16 or 18 and got good(ish) jobs.
  The jobs market has changed drastically since then and it's now virtually impossible to get a job that pays enough money to live on without having some kind of professional training. Young people have no choice but to stay in education for longer. Education doesn't pay so those people will have to have child maintenance/tax credits/child benefit to live on.
  I'm a bit stumped really as to what people who object to this think that the child is going to live on if they don't pay?
• The "child" is actually an adult at these ages,so they should do what people traditionally do in these situations to support themselves,part time work! My main beef is the age seems to rise and rise and rise,meaning were having to support adults for longer and longer! How long till we are supporting 25 year olds! Its never ending!
• I am glad it makes perfect sense to you not such a smug ,,,, however, my son, put hisself through college, he worked along side it,,,, my daughter had to come out of college we couldnt afford to send her. My sd is still doing a first year course three years on, since she has no intentions of working, she is legally classed as an adult, but gets the same benefits as a child, and we have to pay for the privelidge.
  If she was in uni, we would give her money to help her, however, it would be a choice, our choice, not the government dictating. Plus my biggest grievance is the money goes to the pwc,,,,the so called 19 yr old child doesnt see any of the money.
  Yes her mum would still have bills to pay, but she would have to pay them anyway whether the sd lived their or not.
• Does uni count as full time education? or is it not as its further ed? x
• Uni doesn't count, it's generally college courses.
• as long as they are 19 and under on dec 10th they qualify sensemaya, hence my annoyance and frustration
• Meaning of в€œchildв€ќ
  For section 55 of the Child Support Act 1991 (c. 48) substituteв€"
  в€œ55Meaning of в€œchildв€ќ
  (1)In this Act, в€œchildв€ќ means (subject to subsection (2)) a person whoв€"
  (a)has not attained the age of 16, or
  (b)has not attained the age of 20 and satisfies such conditions as may be prescribed.
  (2)A person who is or has been party to a marriage or civil partnership is not a child for the purposes of this Act.
  (3)For the purposes of subsection (2), в€œmarriageв€ќ and в€œcivil partnershipв€ќ include a void marriage and a void civil partnership respectively
  ^ at least a wife/husband cant claim as a PWC
• If the parents were still together then I would hope that they would still be supporting their child who could well still be at home.
• if my hubby and his ex were still together yes he would be supporting his daughter, but not to the tune of the amount he is paying, he would expect her to get a part time job at least, and try and earn some pocket money. As it is, my hubby pays a fortune, his ex gets a full child and working tax cred, she works 16 hours, and of course csa isnt a declarable income.
  We on the other hand, work our fingers to the bone, get no benefits, as they dont take into account we pay csa, so his ex is onto a good thing, we are onto a hiding to nothing.
  I have three children at home, and no, as much as they arent my husbands responsibility, as he isnt their father, my childrens father pays minimum, (he cheats the system cash in hand) so my children loose out, no i dont expect my husbands daughter to loose out either, but it seems my children are loosers all round!!
  If my sd was on a third year course, or at uni, i would more than willingly support her, but it would be an amount of our choosing.
  Would the parent with care do the same, no, as she will loose her benefits one day, so we will have to pay even more to keep sd in life style she is seemingly accustomed too.
  Sorry for the rant!!!
• Oh Marisco, I know you feel strongly about these things but you're not thinking straight.
  a)I don't get the benefits thing. Nnot every parent - whether NRP or PWC - is entitled, on the basis of their earnings, to receive either child tax credit or working tax credit. Soon, some PWC won't be eligible to receive even Child Benefit.
  b) bearing a) in mind, on what basis is it therefore reasonable that any benefits received by the PWC's household should be shared on a 50/50 basis with the NRP, or indeed any basis at all?
  c) maintenance payments are reduced for children living in the NRPs household and for the number of overnights a child/young adult spends at their NRPs house. As such, the PWC doesn't receive 'all' the maintenance.
  d) the argument about means testing benefits isn't relevant in this context, is it?
  e) the Government has decided, given it's recent reforms in both welfare and education, that children remain children well into what we previously considered 'adulthood'. As such, there is an expectation that at least one parent keeps a roof over said child's head. It is therefore not unreasonable that the NRP makes a contribution towards this. There is, of course, reasonable argument that the 'child' should be paid directly once the reach the age of 18 and the the 'child' and PWC come to an arrangement about 'board and lodgings' and is something that you should perhaps be discussing with your MP if any change is to be affected?
  f) I find the 'he might have a family of his own to keep' particularly unpalatable in the context of supporting children, whether aged 8, 18 or 48. An NRP's children don't stop being his/her children, and therefore his/her 'family', just because they spend the majority of their time in another household. A child has two parents, both parents need to work together to support their child. Sometimes in the arguments over money, that gets lost entirely.
  Would you throw your children out because they had reached the age of 18 if they were still studying to try and develop a future for themselves?