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?

sauvignonismydrug Wed 20-Feb-13 20:47:41

Kitty cat, that is a huge generalisation about nrp's!!!
My husband has always paid for his 3 kids and only now pays less than the original agreement as his ex thought she would get more going via csa. He now pays £40 PCM less but what a waste of csa resources when he was already willingly and happily contributing!!
On the flip side, his ex brought in over £500 per month in child tax credits alone. Not once has she ever offered to share this with him, even though the older 2 now spend more than a third of the year with us. When we've raised this with dwp, they have said that 'ideally' this should be shared to benefit the kids. However it is too expensive to police/enforce so we are dependant on this happening voluntarily.

kittycat68 Thu 21-Feb-13 10:39:21

no one is saying that ALL NRP dont pay a fair amount of child support. Child tax credits are there to support a parent on a low income provide for the children its not money that a greedy parent spends on themselves !! However £40 PCM for three children doesnt go anywhere near supporting children!! Your post has just PROVED my point about NRP !!!!!!!

Dahlen Thu 21-Feb-13 10:50:09

I don't have a problem with benefits being docked to pay for child support or parental responsibility being revoked if it is not forthcoming. Anyone can fall down on their luck, but barring caring responsibilities, ill health or disability (in which case, exemption should apply), being long-term unemployed is not an excuse. Allow everyone a set time frame to improve their lot and then apply some sanctions.

I know someone on benefits who would go without food rather than miss a maintenance payment. Many parents with ex partners who don't contribute also find themselves having to do the same. It's about priorities.

A man who pays no maintenance, no contribution towards childcare, who sees his DC once every month or so when he can be bothered and will routinely let them down at the last moment, has no right to call himself father in anything other than the biological sense, let alone be allowed to dictate the lives of those children.

Daddelion Thu 21-Feb-13 10:50:53

She said £40 PCM less, not £40 PCM.

50-50 shared care is the way forward for me.

babyhammock Thu 21-Feb-13 11:00:26

That's the thing though, NRP's who wilfully pay nothing for their children aren't interested in shared care because they simply don't care. Day to day living expenses aren't their problem, childcare isn't their problem, school uniform etc isn't their problem.

They're not interested in responsibilities, only their rights.

kittycat68 Thu 21-Feb-13 11:06:14

SORRY mis read the post!!! appolgies!!!

completely agree with babyhammock, well put !

betterthanever Thu 21-Feb-13 12:32:36

A man who pays no maintenance, no contribution towards childcare, who sees his DC once every month or so when he can be bothered and will routinely let them down at the last moment, has no right to call himself father in anything other than the biological sense, let alone be allowed to dictate the lives of those children. well said

They're not interested in responsibilities, only their rights. spot on......

I think that `parental responsibility' in it's current form is a joke - it is something parents can aquire for themselves and not something that ensures thier reponsibility for thier children is met and that is something I will be saying to a judge very, very soon.

IncogKNEEto Sun 24-Feb-13 19:06:11

I would like to see a system like I believe they have in Sweden, where the government pay the child support to the PWC and the NRP then pays/owes the money to the government.

I believe this would lead to far less wiggle room for those NRP who decide, for whatever reason, that they don't need to pay for their children.

It could be collected via the tax system for both PAYE and self-employed NRPs.

What do others think?

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