Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
I might (soon) have a child!

CMS have recently told me that as I have exact 50:50 in Court Orders that I am over the 175 days and am no longer considered a NRP by them.

They never told me this at the start. They have therefore agreed, as older child is no longer in FT education to:-
     a: remove younger child from the case. Both children were on same case. Eldest already gone.
     b: confirm that the case will be closed
     c: confirm that unless Court Orders change no further case will be opened
     d: write and explain why younger child was on case at all
     e: calculate what charges if any were assessed (wrongly) for younger child and let me know.
     f: not open another case unless and until there is a variation of the Order. 
     g: write to me and confirm all the above

(Interestingly for anyone going to Court, my eldest was removed from an earlier 50:50 Order because of their age at the time, 14, and ex frustrated all their attempts to stay with me. CMS, in this case believed the mother as there was no Court Order to default to and CMS stated that as the Order did not specifically state the times it was the times the mother claimed/achieved that were what counted even though the Order used terms like 'both parents must use ever effort to facilitate their wishes to spend time with either parent', and 'anticipate that they will divide their time equally between the parents' So I would suggest that a default time is included in any Order that covers this especially for older children. Such as 'equally and for half the year with each parent on days the child chooses unless they decide otherwise from time to time'. Someone else will have a better form of words for this.). I would suggest then, for anyone with older children that the statement of the 50:50 is vital and deviation from it should be the choice of the child and that whilst there many not be a Child Arrangements Order for them this default position will greatly reduce the mothers stranglehold on control. Perhaps an offer to the Court that both parents place an appropriate sum of money into a joint pot that is allocated by agreement to the child's needs. The CMS said that had there been an Order/timetable they would have gone by that.

CB have recently told me that:-

     a: I can claim for Child Tax Credits (there is no need to have CB) and which will be granted if,
         (i) There is no open claim (by ex)
         (ii) ex does not object (as she has CB)
         (iii) If there is 'open' claim but nil payment because of ex and partner's household income they will look at it on 'evidence'
         (iv) and that I can open another claim for CB whilst previous case is heading towards Fl Tribunal
         (v) If she is not getting other benefits she might be hanging on to CB to protect pension contributions.

The majority of all this is totally contrary to what I have been told previously.

Local Authority Benefits have told me that:-

     a: CMS decisions and statements above (whilst yet to be confirmed in writing) will greatly help my formal request for Reconsideration of their Single Person's allowance for Housing benefit and possibly open the door for 2 bedroom rate or ongoing discretionary payment to move towards that.

Not surprisingly I hope that this comes true and pass it on in case it is of use to anyone else.
Well now! This is great news.

Are they saying though that if she was being paid child tax credits then you wouldn’t get anything, Ie can’t pay child tax credits for the same children twice?

This is where I think letting NRP’s earn more before paying CMS if they have contact with kids perhaps works better. The rates start at far too low a level £7-100.
What I take from it is:

The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is 'saying' (sic).

I think what they were saying is that if she had opened a child tax credit case (I'm sure she did) which was still open (why would she close it?) but (due to a higher earning new partner) getting nothing from it then they would at least formally consider the application and perhaps take the child's best interests into account. I will let you know what transpires.

My feeling, if it is to be there at all, is that RP status should be there to be lost not won and that there should be no benefit attaching to Child Benefit other than the cash (see pot below). The entire concept of NRP makes me sick. Not being 50:50 does not necessarily mean (nor should it) that you are in any way a lesser person or want or indeed do contribute in a lesser way (either emotionally or financially). Indeed, the lesser percentage can many times mean (if it is not taken from you) that you are in a position to offer more which could and should be more (financially and emotionally) for everybody. I am a strong believer that many of these discussions should take place in front of a judge outside a prison cell. It might concentrate the mind a bit. I also believe that the starting point should be all monies from both parties fully declared and in the pot on the same basis and joint decisions on its use by default.
Yes. The entire thing could all be done in a much fairer way. Claiming for one child each without agreement from the other parent. The each parent meets all costs for one child, can get help with childcare, housing etc . Could make for much much more harmonious relationships.

We are in 2017 and equality is the name of the game these days .... or so they say!
Wow!! Hoping to get just over 175 nights after court who's is Day to day care... have been told by CMS that this won't close the case but put it in the final bracket.
Good luck! For what it's worth I argued that an absolutely equal split would give us and the children all more than half as none of us would feel hard done by and less resent swings and roundabouts of the children's day to day choice. Challenged cafcass and their inconsistencies who said absurdly both that they didn't recognise alienation and that it wasn't present here! Read out something​ I had found in summation that asked something like why we didn't constantly overhear children in supermarkets saying 'mummy, why are we getting a nice supper for daddy tonight? Isn't he a controlling rapist' was a LIP against counsel from some London chambers. My advice is go for half. That is the fairest starting position for the children. It's their lives. Judge didn't seem to like me. Ex in tears. Told I was the author of my own misfortune. Then judge moved me from 6/14 to 7/14. Half holidays. It's the children. Argue they should be put in the best/strongest position to choose the best of each of you when they are old enough. Good luck.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)