Talk

Advanced search

AIBU in thinking that the CSA is out and out sexist?

(21 Posts)
anklebitersmum Tue 13-Sep-11 16:18:50

Just been checking CSA site and was reading the case files...please see for yourselves and tell me AIBU??

http://www.csa.gov.uk/en/about/case-studies.asp

anklebitersmum Tue 13-Sep-11 16:20:48

www.csa.gov.uk/en/about/case-studies.asp

oops, reposted link blush

SnapesMistress Tue 13-Sep-11 17:04:54

In what way, because the case studies were mostly about tracking down men? Men are usually the NRP and therfore the ones who might be dodging csa.

mymummyisasquarehead Tue 13-Sep-11 17:15:13

Sexist?! How exactly??

the majority of non-resident parents are men, therefore it is likely that teh case studies will be mostly about men.

Cocoflower Tue 13-Sep-11 17:20:12

Not sure about sexist; but they are certainly incompentant

anklebitersmum Tue 13-Sep-11 17:35:44

Sexist in as much as there is no need to state on the case studies the sex of the Non-Resident Parent in much the same way as there would be no reason to state their ethnic origin.
Does it effect the case study outcome that the NRP was male?
I think not.
Hence sexist.

(and incompetant t' boot Cocoflower)

Cocoflower Tue 13-Sep-11 17:37:37

Oh, aren't you a clever chops with your t'boots

UsingMainlySpoons Tue 13-Sep-11 17:39:42

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

anklebitersmum Tue 13-Sep-11 17:40:32

Cocoflower, I was agreeing to you at the end, responding in general to start...no offense meant.. just re-read and saw how that may have come off sad

UsingMainlySpoons Tue 13-Sep-11 17:41:15

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Cocoflower Tue 13-Sep-11 17:44:23

Opps. I have completly misread your post. blush

I thought you were telling me my spelling of "incompetent" was wrong (knew is was just didnt really care!)

Now I see you were actually agreeing. Sorry thought you were being a sad "oh I spotted a mistake , Im very smug" type.

Im very embarassed. Sorry. Feeling very ill again today so a bit fuzzy headed.

LRDTheFeministDragon Tue 13-Sep-11 17:45:12

Well, they presumably have to record all sorts of data like sex, ethnic origin or whatever so that if there is a pattern building up, it can be studied and people can try to address whatever the area that needs targeting is. How do you know they don't know that the sex has an impact, and that's why they've given the information?

Cocoflower Tue 13-Sep-11 17:45:42

X-post but very sorry. Very preganant, very sleep deprived, and feel like rubbish. Am a bit over sensitive today. So, so sorry.

LaWeasel Tue 13-Sep-11 18:04:23

Those stories are horribly depressing. £18mil in the bank but avoids making regular maintenance payments angry what a shit head.

Also can't believe the number of people who help them getting away with it.

Cocoflower Tue 13-Sep-11 18:07:23

See I don't see why non-payment of maintence is regarded as seperate from visiting rights.

Surely the fact someone is prepared to lie and cheat to avoid paying for the own flesh and blood is a pretty poor (or good indicator) of the type of character. If you are not prepared to pay for basics like food to keep your child alive how much can you claim you care deeply for that child?

anklebitersmum Tue 13-Sep-11 18:10:44

no dramas Cocoflower...figured it was a mis-read (and my dreadful England didn't help!)

LaWeasel Tue 13-Sep-11 18:11:28

I don't really understand visiting rights at all tbh. I really don't understand why parents who have been abusive to their partners aren't automatically considered a danger to their children too. (Unless I have got that wrong? Would love to be corrected.)

Cocoflower Tue 13-Sep-11 18:15:44

Because Laweasel the law regards it as until something happens they shouldn't stop visiting. Oh and even if something happens you need an almighty amount of evidence to stop any more visits.

On another thread posters claimed pedophiles should be allowed to vist their children unsupervised if their own child was a girl and the pedo had only abused boys.. so far.

Clearly not a case of prevention is better in family law. Surely red flags regarding someones character should be taken seriously.

I pray for the day someone with a brain cell changes family law to protect children.

anklebitersmum Tue 13-Sep-11 18:18:32

I get what you mean Cocoflower reference the access (I'd love to chop my ex off at the door cos he hasn't paid in far too long) but when DH's ex wanted more cash she lied and said we hadn't paid her. There was no opportunity to prove that we had it was just 'well she says and that's that'.
Then she realised that if she refused access that she'd get more money and despite a current court order still won't confirm to them that we have had DS for the periods he's been here.
Although we're cross at the injustice of it (and not least their attitude) she did us a favour as she gets £50 less a month now than he'd paid for the previous 4 yrs.
I was just amazed that they can be so blatantly biased and for no good reason!

Cocoflower Tue 13-Sep-11 18:21:37

So incompentent on both sides ankle

The CSA should have a record clearly stating your DH has paid that can be used in court, because on the other hand if he is meeting and commiting the costs for his child this should go in his favour for access rights as it demonstates good character.

LadyLapsang Tue 13-Sep-11 18:34:24

I don't think the case studies are sexist they are designed to be representative as most (over 90%) non-resident parents are fathers.

Think the shameful thing is when fathers and mothers do not take responsibility for their children when they can.

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