| 1: |
For any particular NRP income: |
| |
(a) |
the PWC may be much poorer than the 2nd family, and it would be unjust for deprived 1st family children to have a modification; |
| |
(b) |
the PWC may be much richer, so there may be a case for a modification; |
| |
(c) |
all parents may earn about the same amount, in which case there is no jusification for such a modification; the 2nd family needs more money, but retains more anyway. |
| |
Since the formula works from just the NRP's income, cases 1(a), 1(b), & 1(c) cannot be distinguished, so a 2nd family modification to the formula would be unsafe. |
| 2: |
If the NRP has no or low pay, there is little maintenance, so little effect from a modification. |
| 3: |
There do appear to be cases where a 2nd family modification may be justified: |
| |
(a) |
if the 2nd family built up commitments before the assessment which they can't decommit from in time; |
| |
(b) |
if there are considerable arrears. |
| |
These cannot be detected from the NRP's income alone, so can't be targeted by a 2nd family modification to the formula. 3(a) & 3(b) may have to be identified explicitly and dealt with by some sort of appeals mechanism. |