to think that these changes to Child Support will cause financial strain and make financial abuse worse.(127 Posts)
I remember another MNer talking about this a while ago. It is a completely stupid idea and will make life harder for many families.
It will also give abusive ex partners an extra way of exerting control.
Its so bloody stupid it beggars belief.
i think its very wrong they should charge the people who refuse to pay just like any other debt company does
This is what the government wants - keep all those feckless single mothers in their place. After all, if they were decent women, their OHs wouldn't need to behave like this and they would all be living in middle class wonderland.
pointy shit, ive got a none payer ex hes in massive arrears does that mean i need to fuck off to the other side of my village where there are more than 1 house to a postcode or can i just stay in the posh bit?
Yep, that's it. Know your place, woman. You are a failure, otherwise you would still be living in domestic bliss.
I have a friend whose violent, physically and emotionally abusive ex husband took her apart - her DS has now, at age 15, realised that his dad is an uncaring shit who only wants to see him because he knows how much it hurts my friend. This has taken 6 years. He has never paid a penny, she has fought and fought to get by, got a degree, paid off her loans, got a really good job now - but the shadow is still there every time she thinks about him. And this government wants women like her to pay for chasing shits like him? Bastards.
your friend sounds like me pointy. minus the degree. rest is the same...my DD runs if she sees her Dad. so sad.
I can't see the logic in me trying to get money out of him if the CSA
I thought at first I wouldn't mind as much if they actually got the money off him...but then if they could get it if they charged me surely they can get it now? If they are having new more effective systems just fecking use them now. please.
Thing is, I don't think they are having new and more effective systems. They just want people to stop using what systems there are.
I think we should go to a system like the one in the US, where they take it straight out of the person's wages - and you know, if the other person is on benefits, they should take it straight out of their benefits too. Not a lot, just a percentage to remind that person that hey, they've got a child and they are responsible for that child.
When DH and I were at our very very worst about 6 years ago, and thinking about splitting up, the first thing he said was that we should talk about finances and that our DDs should not lose out. This is one of many reasons why we are still together and stronger than ever. Real men step up. (And real women too.)
I first posted about this almost two years ago, under a different posting name. At that time the process was under consultation and at one point looked like it might not go ahead as there was opposition in the House of Lords. However I read a few months back that it was going ahead but with slightly cheaper application fees. Yes, all parents with care will have to pay an application fee then once the process is underway, a percentage of their child support will be taken off them as a 'fee'. It's disgraceful. I've spent 6 years fighting to get maintenance for DS. His father is a chronic non-payer and had even left jobs so he doesn't have to pay. He owes over £6k in arrears. I've recently started getting £5 per fortnight, so based on receiving that amount of maintenance, it won't be worth me reapplying.
I know there are loads of people in similar situations and it makes me sick how the single parent (usually the mother) is often vilified but feckless, non-paying, non-responsibility taking non-resident parents are not. It's time the media, government and society were more strict with non-payers and treated them like the scum they are.
funny isint it how the Uk goverment bring in the US benefit ideas (workfare,etc etc) with great ease but find it hard to implement the US version of maintanance from the payroll
oh i forgot that would be to simple
I think part of the government's reasoning behind this scheme is to put people off reapplying. Think about it. If people like me who know it won't be worth paying an application fee just to get about £1 per week after the monthly fee has been taken off, don't bother applying, we'll fall off the system into an abyss. That way, the people who do reapply may well be the 'easier' cases which will be relatively simple to set up. Or at the very least least they'll have fewer cases to work on and get maintenance set up for. Therefore when their success rate figures come out, they'll look great. Except they won't take account of those of us with no private arrangement and no CSA arrangement. The ones getting jack shit.
I agree it's to stop people using the service for 'small' amounts. Unless you are getting somethng substantial you won't bother
My ex has evaded maintenance even making himself unemployed... he's now self employed
hiding his earnings
It's costing the CSA more to fight for maintenance than I will ever see. So I see their point (wasting tax payers money) however it sticks in my throat that I just have to suck up a lack of maintenance. I do wish they could come up with a system that doesn't let men off scot free
I just dont understand why the reaident parent is being charged for using the service, if I failed to pay me council tax I would be taken to court. I would then have to pay my coucil tax and court costs. If these feckless men (or women) do not agree to pay maintenance and have to be chased they should be charged for it!
I use the CSA because the private arrangement my ex set up lasted two months. Then he decided he didnt want to pay. I rang them six months ago, been through DNA spent hours on the phone and not recieved a penny. Using them is not the easy option.
out of intrest are you aware that the minimum benefit assesment is also going up from £5 pw to £10pw?
obviously this still gets split between all the mothers.
What a pile of shit.
The CSA can't collect payments from NRP now ... so they are planning to allow abusive exP's to control the payments for as long as they want - basically until some decent arrears have been built up - then they are going to step in and charge the abused Parent money (THAT THEY DON'T BLOODY HAVE BECAUSE THE FRIGGING EX IS NOT PAYING IT) to pretend to collect the payments. Which incidentally they can't even do properly now when they HAVE the right to deduct payments at source. So obviously it is going to be SO much easier when that option is taken away.
Perhaps getting everyone together with a nice cup of tea and a biscuit will convince the domestic abuser to pay up for thei own child.
wouldn't it be good if RP could take NRP to the small claim courts for lack of maintenance money.
does anyone know if they are going to force people already using them but where the nrp is not paying to start again without them?
basicly if your a nrp who has evaded payment via the csa for years will you just be able to start over refusing again i.e...
say you will pay pwc directly
csa involved but say they cant inc arrears if the nrp claims hes paid so basicly write off 6-12 moths worth of arrears.
csa only chase monies owed after they got involved?
If I had a private arrangement with my ex, I'd give it 2 months before his first 'pay cut'. When we first split up, he thought £20 pcm was a fair amount to give me to support two children, the CSA awarded them £180 pcm. That's quite a difference.
i wouldnt even give mine the benefit of the doubt.
he would laugh his head off not bother to pay anything and if i spoke to him about it would scream at me in the street and call me a money grabbing cunt.
just like he has done for years
The Tories are cunts.
I'd already planned to respond to the latest DWP consultation, I think it finishes friday, I'm not going down without a fight. I've already started scribbling down notes.
How dare they suggest single parents aren't capable of setting up a private agreement. I tried, my abusive X wouldn't do it so I use the CSA. It is a safe way of getting the money.
Pointy, yeah, that's pretty much what happens here in the US. If you have a parent who refuses to pay child support, the custodial parent can go to court (paying court and lawyer fees, of course) to get a judgement. Once the custodial parent has the judgement, the non-custodial parent's wages are garnished, as well as any tax refunds or tax credits.
A potential down-side is that many of these parents whose wages are garnished for child support will either take an under-the-table job that pays cash (and thus goes unreported to the government) or will frequently switch jobs so that his/her wages never get garnished (since it takes a non-zero amount of time for the garnishment paperwork to happen).
One final thing: In the US, a non-paying parent with child support (maintenance) in arrears cannot receive a passport to travel outside the United States.
I don't think it is unfair for them to charge for the service, but if they are going to charge for the service it needs to work and the person being charged needs to be the NRP who is not paying. At the moment it is a shambles and the whole system needs a revamp.
The government just dont get it.
The reason the majority of people use the csa is because their exes dont pay voluntarily so why do they think that by charging the rp will make nrp pay.
Its ridiculous that i would have to pay for my dd to get money from her dad. Why cant it just be that the nrp has to pay not the rp.
Join the discussion
Please login first.