Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any legal concerns we suggest you consult a solicitor.

Changing The Csa law

(33 Posts)
sironaandreillysmummy Tue 19-Feb-13 13:49:24

Im a mother of two young children and am currently recieving £1.67 a week per child from their father. He is on jobseekers allowence and only has to pay me and another mother a maximum of £5 a week. If their father was to have more children my money and the other mothers money will go down even more. Eventually if my childrens father has more children and the mothers come forward he will end up having to pay 1p per week per child (A bit ott i know but thats the reality of it) I dont feel that is fair if the father has parental responsabilty for when i wish to change my childrens names and for if i want to apply for a passport then why doesnt have to pay more? My point to this message is I want to get the law changed who will be up for signing a petition?

Collaborate Tue 19-Feb-13 17:20:39

So if a wealthy father pays a lot of maintenance you think he should see more of the child?

I don't think anyone working in this area of the law would necessarily agree with you on this one.

Shouldn't this be on AIBU?

PatienceALittleThin Tue 19-Feb-13 17:39:18

How much of the £71 per week do you think the CSA should take?

Booyhoo Tue 19-Feb-13 17:46:47

not sure why you are getting shitty responses OP. it is totally unacceptable that a parent can get away with paying as little as that for their child. it wouldn't be acceptable for you to pay so little towards the child as it would basically mean your child was being neglected and starved. i think there should be a minimum amount payable based on a figure provided by the Govt similar to the way they can work out what a living wage is or how much CB should be. they should work out a minimum amount that it costs to raise a child per week/month and both parents should be eligible for paying half. i do honestly believe the UK will get to this realisation and that it will be put into practise at some point in the future. it cant come soon enough.

do you have a petition i could look at?

Booyhoo Tue 19-Feb-13 17:48:22

i do agree that CS should not affect how much or little time a parent gets to spend with their child.

PatienceALittleThin Tue 19-Feb-13 17:58:03

What shitty responses? The OP wants to bring about a change of law and is asking who's up for signing a petition, but she doesn't say what she wants to change it to. So I asked her. And you say you agree with the other response. confused

Booyhoo Tue 19-Feb-13 18:06:18

your response came across as if you thought OP was being greedy wanting to 'take' more of the NRP's £71 than what she was currently getting. apologies if i have interpreted that wrongly. tone is difficult to read in text.

collaborate's comment about this thread being in AIBU was shitty. why should it be in AIBU?

Collaborate Tue 19-Feb-13 23:35:37

Why on earth should someone on an unemployment benefit, getting a single person rate, pay more than £5 a week in child support? They're not getting benefits from the state to do anything other than keep themselves at the most basic of subsistence levels.
On OP's logic then mothers who can not afford to contribute towards their children, like those on unemployment benefits, should get their parental responsibility removed as well.
Two other points;
1. To illustrate her point by saying what would happen if her ex goes on to have 500 children is a joke. What on earth would she suggest? That the father pays £5 a child so that eventually all his benefits will be spent on the children, leaving him with nothing got himself?
2. The OP infers that her children to her ex were not ex's first children. She is critical if him for going off and having more children, but let's face it she helped him get the ball rolling in that department.

So not a shitty response. I thought it was a pretty ranty and I'll thought out OP.

betterthanever Tue 19-Feb-13 23:42:46

I think the replies are missing the point - she is stating why does he only have to comply with some of his parental responsibilities i.e. the ones that control what she can do as a mother and not the one that says, being able to provide for children he chooses to have.
Collaborate I think your point about her getting the `ball rolling' is terrible even from you.

She is critical of him having had more children he is unable to support which I think is a very valid point. It opens up another debate but why should some people feel they can have as many children as they like and someone else can pay for them - not very responsible IMO.

Collaborate Wed 20-Feb-13 00:21:24

He can't afford to pay more if he's unemployed.

Shall we take parental responsibility away from all parents who are unemployed then? Or just if they happen not to be the residential parent?

Booyhoo Wed 20-Feb-13 00:31:06

"The OP infers that her children to her ex were not ex's first children."

the OP inferred nothing. you inferred, although i am not sure why as she has not said or implied, that her children with him were not his first . she did say that he pays maintenance to another mother. she has not said whether it is for a child or children born before hers.

"Why on earth should someone on an unemployment benefit, getting a single person rate, pay more than £5 a week in child support? "

to support the children they created. it's a radical concept i know hmm

my comment about your shitty response has been explained above. but as you seem to have ignored it i will ask again. why, apart from your possesiveness over the legal section or any threads that suggest legal advice may be required, should this thread have been posted in AIBU?

Collaborate Wed 20-Feb-13 00:44:29

AIBU on the basis that she is asking if people agree with her, rather than asking for advice over a legal problem.

I just assumed that as OP's children were young then the other child was older. I'm prepared to accept that he could have had another child after leaving OP but I'd guess she would have mentioned that.

I think you're right that sometimes people don't stop to consider how new additions to the family can be supported, and they should, but do you really want to live in a society that limits people's benefits to such a level that they cannot feed themselves?

And your observation that people should be made to support the children they create is an argument for abolishing state benefits for children is it not?

Booyhoo Wed 20-Feb-13 00:59:59

" My point to this message is I want to get the law changed who will be up for signing a petition? "

she is asking about support for changing a law. the legal section is a perfectly acceptable place to seek that support.

"And your observation that people should be made to support the children they create is an argument for abolishing state benefits for children is it not? "

is it? or am i saying that those people that are on benefits should be getting enough so that the children they have are being supported to an acceptable level without either parent having to starve or become homeless?

toosoppyforwords Wed 20-Feb-13 10:45:00

What do you actually want the law changed to OP? I appreciate it is hard to support your children when the father is unemployed/on low income/generally playing hardball - but i thought the law was quite clear at the moment in regards to expectations.? Where fathers are earning the CSA would expect to pay up to 20% income for their children? Do you think that is wrong, too little etc? Are you suggetsing that it is raised, if so to what %. And then how would they afford a roof over their head, food, transport etc

I agree that people (mothers and fathers) should think about how they afford to support any offspring (and in general not expect the state to support them as a lifestlye choice rather than falling on hard times) and i dont think many people do give that enough consideration

Maybe also though as women we need to stop enabling men to produce mulitple children with multiple women and then be surprised when they dont/wont or can't support them.

I'm not aiming this specifically at the OP but more a general observation on society

titchy Wed 20-Feb-13 11:05:56

Booyhoo:
or am i saying that those people that are on benefits should be getting enough so that the children they have are being supported to an acceptable level without either parent having to starve or become homeless?

So what - increase income support to feckless fathers who claim they have 16 kids to support? Might be simpler just to give the RP the money to support her dcs in the first place. Oh wait....

Booyhoo Wed 20-Feb-13 11:48:59

no titchy. increase benefits for everyone (because i just dont think they are enough at the minute but they're actually getting reduced so that isn't going to happen) and change the law so that a minimum level of CS based on what it actually costs to raise a child MUST be paid. the same amount per child across the country and if that means an NRP only has so much left to live on then they wont be rushing out to have more dcs they wont support because they would have to support them.

kittycat68 Wed 20-Feb-13 13:50:38

There is unfortunately a culture in this country where non resident parents do there best to get out of paying child support or as little as possible leaving the resident parent more often than not having to claim benefits to survive. The goverment needs to change the laws in child support . Otherwise they will continue to have more and more parents on benefits. Its the children who suffer here! Self employed non resident parents often are the worse barely paying any CS and living extreamly well! Nothing worse than a non resident parent claim how they pay there child support etc etc and how they support there kids and paying £5 a week for 3-4 kids!!

Collaborate Wed 20-Feb-13 14:25:27

I agree that the self-employed are the worst at this - particularly where they have a cash income.

Benefit claimants are different however. I have problems with the fact that whilst people generally believe that what get paid in JSA isn't enough to live on, somehowsome are of the opinion that the absent parent should lose more than £5 a week, without regard to what it means to that parent. I have a client who is a mother on JSA who has her children nearly 3 days a week and is meant to pay for their food when they are with her out of her JSA. Some would have it that she should find even more out of her benefits to pay over to the father, or lose the right to have a say in her children's future.

I think that's a really sad state of affairs.

babyhammock Wed 20-Feb-13 14:42:09

I don't think there's anything you can do to get more out of NRPs that are on JSA etc. However what happens to those NRPs who wilfully pay absolutely nothing....nothing is what happens to them.

My ex was court ordered to pay child support (unusual as apparently courts have little juristriction over this due to it being supposedly up to CSA). He has completely ignored it, pays nothing and nothing happens.

In Canada if an NRP doesn't pay child support for a year they're considered a delinquent parent and all parental rights are revoked. Aside obviously from NRPs who are either studying or out of work, I wish that applied over here.

kittycat68 Wed 20-Feb-13 14:51:16

totally agree this country should adopt the canadian approach!!

babyhammock Wed 20-Feb-13 14:55:38

Maybe we should campaign for that kitty

kittycat68 Wed 20-Feb-13 18:01:39

Can u just imagine what the fathers rights groups will say!!!!

HappyMummyOfOne Wed 20-Feb-13 20:14:36

There are both PWC and NRP that dont support their children financially, both should of course but the reality is very different and a petition wont resolve that.

Parental rights and access to the children are totally separate. Children are not pay per view and neither should a parent be stripped of their rights as they no longer live with the other parent.

On the S/E side, its a little two faced. Its fine when the household is benefitting from that income and using whatever tax allowances etc to pay minimal tax but then totally immoral once the couple split.

Booyhoo Wed 20-Feb-13 20:22:19

"On the S/E side, its a little two faced. Its fine when the household is benefitting from that income and using whatever tax allowances etc to pay minimal tax but then totally immoral once the couple split. "

not really. not all parents were a couple. not all NRPs were SE whilst still in relationship with other parent. dont think you're being fair to call PWC two faced.

betterthanever Wed 20-Feb-13 20:42:27

I am also in the same position babyhammock and back the Canadian approach. I'm up for a petition.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now