to be astounded that the CSA are going to take a cut of maintenance payments?

[Inertia]

Link here : m.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jan/13/fees-child-maintenance-intervention?cat=society&type=article

How on earth can the government justify this ?

50/50 care isn't an option if the dad is likely to harm the children. In those cases the CSA is the only option.

I'll be happy to pay for the CSA's service providing I get proper service, no dithering and get payments on time. The service they provide can be crap, they'll need to earn their fee.

My ex dodges payments too, and currently I do need his money to keep us going.

I too have to call regularly and chivvy them along. It's a gigantic pain in the butt!!

Yes and they do often have an attitude of we've got a cheek to expect it to be paid!

Am I the only person who has not had a problem with the CSA? 8 weeks from first phone call to first payment and continuing payments despite XP being made redundant and changing jobs. He is an arse though, he thinks Dads only provide the money (and abuse ).

I heard that you could use the courts if you have a disabled child?

BTW Meglet - I am glad it has been easier for you - perhaps they are becoming more efficient! Sometimes you get a case worker who bothers to do their job properly.

I did have all of XP's details though, job, NIN, bank details, address etc. I suspect they go for the easy targets first and all the dodgy feckers slip though the net .

meglet, it was all plain sailing with the csa for me too.

then there was a few months when the payments dropped dramatically to nearly nothing and i phoned the csa. they were super efficient with phoning ex's employer etc. it turned out, after about 5 months on this 'reduced' payment, that my ex's employers were calculating incorrectly; his wage had not changed at all. not once did my ex say or ask me if his kids were ok with his shortfall or offer to pay the difference. he kept silent-tried to obviously dodge it. i never asked him about it. just goes to show. if no one was forcing him to pay, he would not be.

i know he will be the first man to put his hand up and say he will agree maintenance privately [so as not to pay the extra percentage and try to pay out less to his children]. he will also be the first person to muck it about, 4 weeks later. in the mean time, time gets wasted, we struggle and we all have extra unecessary stress etc etc.

we are fine as we are already without the governemnt forcing themselves into our private relationships and making me talk to someone who i dont want to talk to. i think, the last time i checked, it was up to me to go to mediation or not, it was up to me if i wanted to 'discuss' maintenece with him or not. not one person in this country will make me/put me through the stress of having to work out our finances 'together'.

HappyMummyofOne Read the law for family court. It states that Fathers should always have contact with their children and that the burden of proof otherwise rests with the Mother. Thats not biased towards Mums. In fact, even if your kids father has gone to prison...as long as he has not touched his OWN child then he will be awarded contact.

So either you are not a Mummy at all, a troll or just not in touch with reality.

Youllskimmer

If you are a Mum on benefits it used to be that you had to show proof you had gone to the CSA. Every parent I know who is seperated uses them.

Please people, just because you do not use it don't assume no one uses it. Google percentages of non paying parents before commenting on here. Again either deliberately inflaming the thread or whatever.

This reforms to the CSA will negatively effect everyone who currently HAS to use it. How else would I find my ex if I couldn't use the CSA?

Meglet I think you are right

Exactly, some people are not in contact with the NRP but the CSA can trace them if they are on a payroll somewhere and money can be sought that way.

Ceretrea, they are biased towards women as men rarely get awarded residence or even 50/50 - most get every other weekend and poss one night in the week for a few hours. So yes, the courts favour one parent over another. I never said they got no contact at all from the courts.

First time i've been called a troll or not a mum

My experience is vastly different to yours then. I saw it all around me for years. Mums losing residency battles. Abusive ex partners getting 50/50 care. The courts should be biased towards the children not either one or other of the parents.

But essentially this is a discussion about CSA so lets get back to that without adding more emotive topics into the mix

The courts are not biased towards women.

They are biased towards the primary carer, quite rightly. And that happens in most cases to be women.

If men want joint custody, then they should do joint parenting. Most of them don't, they leave the day to day stuff to women, even when the women have gone back to work after maternity leave.

YANBU. The mother (or one who is left with the kids, but it's normally normally the mum) should not have to pay to get financial support. If someone needs to be chased for child support they should pay the CSA for their service.

Happymummyofone Shame we can't all be perfect like you...

I'll advise my DC don't have children with a partner who wants to give up work and stay at home with the children as you'll see less of the children if you split up.

And don't sacrifice your career so you're never financially reliant on anyone.

Dadwandersin Even if a parent works, they still require child support from the NRP. I work and always have - I was never financially reliant on my ex. Just as well really, isn't it?

My DC live with me a lot of the time, I don't get child support.

There are ways of doing this so it isn't so adversarial.

For alot of people the csa is the only way to get any financial support from the nrp. I'm sure that if you could do it by agreement you would.

I'm owed £2500 in arrears, I'll never get it

I work and support myself and always have. Same as you softkitty, good job eh!

I wouldn't object to paying the CSA to do this provided you could withhold payment from them if they continue to provide rubbish service. Sadly I doubt that will be an option.

I would not be able to afford to pay £100 to chase up XH. So basically, if he came to the UK and started working, there would be no way for me to chase him for maintainance. A lot of lone parents are in this situation.

It just goes to show how out of touch the Tories are to dream up this kind of thing. To them £100 is nothing, so they couldn't possibly imagine the hardship it would cause for a lone parent on a low income. Even £50 for someone on benefits is obscene.

OOHHHHH! I makes me sooooo angry, grrrrr!

The Tories aren't out of touch this is their brand of politics.

Their view is sort yourself out, the government isn't going to spend money sorting out peoples problems. It's no surprise legal aid is being cut back as well.

People wanted labour out but I don't think people remembered how brutal the Tories are.

Indeed. It's not that the Tories don't know what effects their decisions will have. They're not stupid. They know perfectly well what the impact will be, it's just that they don't care.

I completely agree with the above posts- the tories definitely don't care and never have. They are the same old party they always were - remember the poll tax riots?