Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

152 replies

Inertia · 17/03/2011 18:34

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 ?

OP posts:
HerBeX · 19/03/2011 20:15

But what is really surprising is that they are the people who actually set up the CSA in the first place.

The ideology back then, was that it was a complete outrage that most non-resident parents didn't pay maintenance, meaning that most lone parents were on income support because in those days, there were no tax credits and if you couldn't afford childcare, you couldn't afford to work.

Now it seems, they don't mind if non-resident parents don't pay maintenance. The very reason they set the CSA up, was because they said they thought parents ought to take financial responsibility for their children, whether they live with them or not. Which most reasonable people wouldn't actually argue with. Are they now saying that they don't believe in personal responsibility, or that you only have personal responsibility for your children if you live with them?

What sanctions are they proposing for parents who don't pay maintenance?

electra · 20/03/2011 01:04

Indeed Herbex.....

Hereforlife · 20/03/2011 09:22

Benefits are starting to be cut, tax credits and child benefit.

I'm stunned that people are surprised that the Tories do this.

They believe in people supporting themselves and if you're struggling tough.

They believe the government isn't here to bale you out.

hissymissy · 20/03/2011 09:36

They (the tories) don't care because they have no idea what it means to truly struggle and have no way out. There are tories out there who are nice people, but they don't understand. They think that because they can manage, everyone can. If you can't it must be because you are feckless, lazy or stupid in which case you deserve to suffer.

As for the CSA, they don't comprehend that £100 is a lot of money, to them it is small change.

I actually wouldn't have such a problem with them taking a small percentage of the maintainance, but they won't do that because most payments through the CSA are miniscule.

hissymissy · 20/03/2011 09:38

I'm not surprised Hereforlife. That's why I have never and will never vote for them (unless the only alternative was the BNP). I am just regretting voting for the yellow bunch now. Should have stuck with the reds. Sad Angry

sakura · 20/03/2011 09:42

Inertia, I agree with your posts except this one
"I think it's partly because those who make the decisions are so distanced from circumstances like this that they do not comprehend what an impact it has on people's lives to be left penniless (or worse, in debt) when a partner walks out on the family. £100 isn't much when you have a family fortune to fall back on, or 4 million in trust funds. "

Women are going to have to get their head around the fact that the government does know the effect this will have. It does know and it is doing it deliberately . Attacking women, especially single mothers is part of its ideology and the sooner we can get our head around that, the better our fighting position.

electra · 20/03/2011 10:04

'There are tories out there who are nice people, but they don't understand.'

If you can't empathise with other people, you're not actually that nice imo. But yes I see what you mean. My parents voted tory all my childhood (most of my family do). My mum has changed her position now that I have a disabled daughter, she has a disabled grandchild and she has realised that misfortune can happen to anyone at any time and is not necessarily your fault.

I, for one am not at all surprised at what they are doing - just very worried about how long we are going to have to put up with them and what will follow.......

sakura · 20/03/2011 11:09

fgs nobody vote Tory next time round Shock

muminthemiddle · 20/03/2011 11:44

I am not surprised, everything else is being cut so this is no exception.

Agree with SAKURA.

gaelicsheep · 21/03/2011 01:26

"But what is really surprising is that they are the people who actually set up the CSA in the first place.

The ideology back then, was that it was a complete outrage that most non-resident parents didn't pay maintenance, meaning that most lone parents were on income support because in those days, there were no tax credits and if you couldn't afford childcare, you couldn't afford to work."

No, the ideology back then was to cut the benefit bill at all costs. Nobody should kid themselves that the Tories had children's or lone parents' welfare at heart. Don't forget that any maintenance paid by the NRP was clawed back in full from the PWC's benefit money.

splashyy · 21/03/2011 09:17

I wasn't going to comment but felt I had to after reading.

I am truly shocked by the amount of animosity towards single mothers. Some seem to think 'its your fault, so you should pay'. Those people should be ashamed of themselves, you have clearly been lucky enough to never be in this situation.

Fathers should pay, and it is shameful that so many do not. Fine, charge the nrp for the service if they are obstructive, but don't find yet another way to penalize single mothers.

HerBeX · 21/03/2011 18:35

Ah yes GS but at least they dressed it up as a reasonable ideology. Of course it was all about money really, but the ideology allowed them to pretend it was about personal responsibility which fitted in with Tory values.

I don't quite know how deadbeat dads fit in with tory values....

gaelicsheep · 21/03/2011 21:04

splashyy and HERbeX - lots of sweeping generalisations in your posts there, and no doubt on the thread in general. Single mothers? Not always, sometimes they have (re-) married and had more children. Fathers should pay? Sometimes the father is the PWC. Deadbeat dads? Some of these dads are doing their level best and did not choose to be away from their children.

Such generalisations and stereotypes are not helpful.

hissymissy · 21/03/2011 21:15

That may be true gaelicsheep. It's better to refer to the Non Resident Parent, instead of generalising fathers, even though in reality the NRP is usually father.

The fact is it is morally wrong and will be detrimental to the children and resident parent. This proposal will make it, to all intents and purposes, imposible to chase up NRP who refuse to financially support their children if you are a LP on a low income. So the very people who most need the NRP to contribute will be those who are barred from help!

HerBeX · 21/03/2011 21:19

Bollocks fathers who don't pay a penny for their kids are not doing their best, they are deadbeat dads. I make no apology for that sweeping generalisation, there may be a window of time where some otherwise decent fathers are unable to pay because of cash flow problems, but FGS, 60% of them, year after year? Deadbeats.

Only 10% of PWC's are fathers btw.

Snorbs · 21/03/2011 21:43

Absolutely. Only 10% of PWC are fathers so fuck 'em, they don't count.

HerBeX · 21/03/2011 21:54

oh don't be silly snorbs.

It was in response to the "oh it's not such a big problem of deadbeat dads because some of them (only 10%) are PWC's"

It irritates me to see a steadfast denial of systematic sexism around this issue. The reason people think it's OK that 60% of NRP's don't pay maintenance, is because 90% of those NRP's are men. Like I said earlier, if they were women, it simply wouldn't happen because the consequence of not financially supporting your own children, would be prison. Rightly so.

gaelicsheep · 22/03/2011 21:26

HerBeX - you did not specify that you were referring to dads (parents) who pay no maintenance at all.

Pay a little more attention to your language and you might be able to have an intelligent conversation. It always descends into mud slinging against fathers in general which is, frankly, quite silly.

gaelicsheep · 22/03/2011 21:53

Oops, I edited that post and thought I'd stopped it posting. Just to clarify the second paragraph was not aimed at HerBeX but the thread in general.

BTW, I do agree there is systematic sexism - against men.

planomum · 23/03/2011 02:30

I used both the csa and the courts as ds is diasbled and was receiving dla which entitled me to seek additional child support via the courts on top of the csa. Normally you are barred by law from any other means of enforcement than csa and this is the flaw in the prosposal to charge - that in reality you have no choice in enforcement.

My experience comparing the 2 processes was that it took the csa 3 months to make an assessment and then close to 4 years to get regular payments and took all the information the ex gave them about his income without question hence a really low assessment; court took 5 months to get to a hearing ( ex asked for 2 postponements) but judge picked holes in his claims about his income and awarded extra payments; enforcement took 3 months. CSA cost me nothing if you do not count the endless calls, letters and visits to my MP; court cost me 1400 pounds for a solicitor but was quicker and and was way less stressful.

I would happily pay for a working effective system that allows me the choice but I do not see why if I have to deal with the csa's utter incompetence I should have to pay for it. Suggesting that we can all reach amicable arrangement is living in cloud cuckoo land - those that can do that never get anywhere near the CSA - the only reason any sane person would use them is if they have no choice.

HerBeX · 23/03/2011 18:02

oh really, systematic sexism against men? I would take you seriously if 3/5 of non-resident parents, 90% of whom are men, didn't decline to financially support their children.

Do you really not see the problem with that?

gaelicsheep · 23/03/2011 21:48

Perhaps if fathers were valued by society in any way at all other than as walking wallets there wouldn't be quite so much resentment. I have lived through the effects of the disastrous CSA1 and I know what it did to fathers and their families. And no, before you presume, I am not a man.

usualsuspect · 23/03/2011 22:08

walking wallets???

Maybe if single mothers were not so vilified by society we would all be better off

just a thought

flippinada · 23/03/2011 22:27

gaelicsheep - Fathers are regarded as walking wallets?

Wha a load of rubbish. Sorry to be so blunt but honestly.

Are you taking a personal experience and extrapolating it to = all ex wives are money grabbing witches?

HerBeX · 23/03/2011 22:55

You don't have to be a man to have absorbed mysogynist myths GS.

Walking wallets forsooth. How do you come to the conclusion that society regards fathers as walking wallets, when it tolerates a majority of those who don't live with their children, not financially supporting them?

I would say that that makes them the opposite of walknig wallets actually. To be regarded as a walking wallet, you need to be actually open your wallet occasionally. Seeing as how the majority of NRP's pay not one penny, they're pretty crap walking wallets aren't they? LOLOL at how opposite the reality is, to the myth. Don't let the fact that the majority of NRP's pay no maintenance, stand in the way of a good mysogynist myth now, will you. Grin