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)
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?
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?
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.
SORRY mis read the post!!! appolgies!!!
completely agree with babyhammock, well put !
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.
She said £40 PCM less, not £40 PCM.
50-50 shared care is the way forward for me.
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.
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 !!!!!!!
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.
I am also in the same position babyhammock and back the Canadian approach. I'm up for a petition.
"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.
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.
Can u just imagine what the fathers rights groups will say!!!!
Maybe we should campaign for that kitty
totally agree this country should adopt the canadian approach!!
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.
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.
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!!
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.
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....
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
" 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?
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?
"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
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?
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?
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.
Join the discussion
Please login first.