to believe there has to be a better way?? (wrt CSA)

[littlemisssarcastic]

I am having no joy with the CSA, XP is a 'job hopper'.
By the time the CSA have his income details (from HMRC which takes approx 12 weeks) XP has moved on again to yet another job.
XP begrudges DD a single penny and has in fact stolen every penny she has ever been given as a gift. He is the definition of 'non compliant parent imo.

After yet another futile conversation with CSA today, where they now want me to try direct payments from XP instead of going through the CSA, I am wondering whether there is a better way of getting money from unco operative NRP's to RP's which may be more successful than the CSA. I am not aware of any such system apart from CSA now, but is there for instance any reason why CSA can't be used to ascertain who the NRP is (if they deny they are the parent) and once it is established who the NRP is, the whole issue of collecting child maintenance is passed onto HMRC who then collect maintenance payments alongside income tax and distribute to RP's?

Is this a possibility?

It seems to me that the CSA is a failure for many RP's and a huge amount of money is pumped into it with very few satisfactory results, or is that just me?

Andrew, I didn't say NRP's should be prevented from seeing their children if they don't pay! That is something I wholeheartedly disagree with.

I said that if NRP's who pay nothing towards the upkeep of their children complain that they don't have money to take their children out or do anything with them when they do have contact, then they have no reason to complain. They would have access to money if they pay towards their children's upkeep.

I know my views come ascross as extremely harsh, but the fact is that there are NRP's out there that think it's ok for the other parent to be forced to claim benefits to provide for their children when they are in a position to pay for them themselves.

There are people all over this site that have said that their ex pays nothing towards the children, or that they pay the bare minimum, but then they still have nice things, go on holiday etc. That should not be allowed, it's just wrong. If you have a child, you provide for it as best you can, and if you don't do that then you don't get the privelidges that come with living in this country. I think that's fair.

I don't expect that to result in sick or elderly people that get no help whatsoever, I expect that to result in more children being paid for by the people that created them. If a person is so irresponsible that they can't pay towards bringing up the child they made, then I don't see why they should deserve the benefits of living in a country with a welfare state such as ours. They will still get the benefit of knowing that their child is being cared for even though they are too feckless to do it themselves, and I think that's more than enough.

Give ME the CSA to run for a few years - I can guarantee that it would be sorted out from the bottom up! It would be quite simple to do - make detachment of earnings the ONLY way to pay maintenance. Stop self-employed people from having to self-assess for taxation purposes - because then maintenance can be deducted at source for them too. Use the same system for EVERY NRP (not the confusing mish-mash we currently have).

Make non-payment for more than 6 months (ample time to get a job - ANY job, even one you are wildly over-qualified for) a CRIMINAL OFFENCE punishable by imprisonment. Make out-of-work benefits for NRP's CONDITIONAL on paying X amount of it (even a nominal sum) to the child's RP. The same amount per child. If an NRP has 6 dc with different parents, and HAD to pay £5 per child from his £65 a week JSA - they'd have to get a job pretty sharpish, wouldn't they? If he was left with only £35 a week for EVERYTHING (bearing in mind he would get his rent and council tax paid), he'd have no choice but to take the first job he was offered and bloody keep it if JSA no longer afforded him the possibility of shirking his responsibilities. Give him bloody food vouchers until he starts paying.

Make it so that if an NRP decides to stay out of work on JSA, AND has a new family - the CSA they pay their first child / children does not drop each time they pop another child out. My maintenance from Ex-H is currently £1.36 a week. When his next child is born in January, I will get precisely NO maintenance, because he has been out of work for 9 years. I am disabled (and the RP) and I have worked both Part time, and Full time for 5 out of the last 9 years...he is a workshy wastrel who pops out dc with no thoughts to supporting them.

UTILISE the powers that ARE available to the CSA such as taking passports away, using Deprivation of Income Variations, imprisoning repeat non-payers, taking away the driving licenses, sending in Bailiffs etc - all these powers ARE available to the CSA but are rarely used. Give them some bloody teeth and USE THEM.

Make it so that assessments are done in a MAXIMUM of four weeks, start to finish. The HMRC manage it when it is renewal time for Tax Credits - and they have to do EVERYONE CLAIMING TC's at the same time - the CSA could stagger these based on application date! And if it only took four weeks to carry out an assessment, then NRP's cannot complain about arrears being built up that they are unable to pay, as the formula will be a set % of income (IMO BEFORE pension contributions - that is a choice many RP's DON'T get, to pay into a pension, because a lot of NRP's deprive them of CSA income by upping pension contributions). So the 'good' NRP could work out exactly what they should be putting aside to pay the first months' maintenance off.

Make assessments something that are automatically done annually lke the TC renewal. To make sure NRP's wage rises ARE taken into account.

Assess maintenance on HOUSEHOLD income like TC's, so that if an NRP chooses to be a SAHD in his NEW family - it does NOT deprive the dc from the first family of maintenance - tough if it leaves the new family short - they need to budget for the maintenance when making their decision who (if anyone) should be a SAHP. If it was 15% of household income, whether the NRP or the NRPP was the sole wage earner - then it wouldn't deprive the dc from the first family of financial support. It may suit the NRP's NEW family for them to be a SAHD - but what of the NRP's FIRST family. THAT loophole needs closing NOW. The NRP's new partner CANNOT ignore the fact that the NRP (and his new family) have a financial responsibility towards the dc from his original family, and that MUST be taken into account.

STOP taking the NRP's new families dc's CTC's into account when deciding maintenance - THAT IS unfair on NRP's new families who have been given those TC's on the basis of THEIR low income, it's bog all to do with the maintenance. However - WTC SHOULD be taken into account, as they are income for the NRP not for the dc in that household. So not the childcare money from TC's, OR the CTC's, but WTC's SHOULD be taken into account.

Enough answers as to what needs to be done - or do you want more...

As an addendum - when I say it should be 15% of the NRP's household income - I mean if there is a SAHP in the NRP's new household - if BOTH adults in the NRP's new family work, then the NRP's partners income shouldn't be taken into consideration - only if the NRP becomes a SAHD. Because that ISN'T an option to him when he has OTHER dc to support - his current partner may be able to support HER family by working outside the home on the basis that her partner is a SAHD, but she cannot do so on the basis of that if her partner is someone ELSE'S NRP who has a financial responsibility towards his other dc.

If he does become a SAHD to benefit his new family - then it is only right that the NRP's partner's income ALSO benefits his old family. Might sound harsh - but the NRP's partner does NOT only have her own little nuclear family to consider - she HAS to consider the financial implications on her partners non-resident dc too. That is what happens when you get with someone who already has dc.

If the NRP's new partner already had dc - she would expect the NRP's wages to support HER dc if SHE is a SAHP - so why the fuck do they NOT expect HER wages to support HIS dc if HE is a SAHP?! What's good for the goose is good for the gander IMO.

i vote we let hunty take over CSA from now on, i might get some money :)

"there are NRP's out there that think it's ok for the other parent to be forced to claim benefits to provide for their children when they are in a position to pay for them themselves."

Sorry but this statement is completely flawed. No-one is claiming benefits because the NRP doesn't pay. Those benefits are payable whether the NRP pays or not.

But not everyone would claim benefits if they didn't need to. I'm entiled to certain benefits, but I'm not in a position where I really need them because I have a school hours job and my ex pays for his children. As he should. I'm not going to claim benefits that I don't need, because I think that would be wrong.

My dc don't go without, because my ex privately pays more than what the CSA say he should pay and because I provide for them too.

My ex could pay the minimum recommended by the CSA and I could claim benefits, but we both think that would be incredibly irresponsible.

Well, HuntyCat, your opinion that a working woman's income should be effectively diverted to her partner's DCs by a previous DW/DP may not be entirely popular with others on this forum!

I know driving licences can be cancelled but I cannot see it achieving much. As for sending in the bailiffs - there is rarely anything worth seizing and selling. In that respect maintenance debt is like all other debt, I am afraid.

If such debt is never time-barred - and you live and learn - that is all the more reason for not preferring it . . . other creditors also have rights and they amy not be big banks and finance companies!

And I don't see how you can apply attachment of earnings to self-employed people. That only works where there is one regular payer of income - not where it comes in from different people at different times. If I pay money to a trader how the hell do I know whether he is in default on his maintenance?

The opinion that a working woman's income should be effectively diverted to her partner's DCs by a previous DW/DP may be unpopular with some people, but those people would be selfish people.

Hunty was only talking about that in the context of a NRP not working and being supported by a partner anyway, and if someone makes the choice to financially support their partner so that they don't have to work, then they are also making the choice to support that person's children.

They would have the facts before they make that choice. They would know that they are getting involved with someone that has children, and they would know that that comes with financial responsibility. Any choice they make after that is done with that knowledge.

"My ex could pay the minimum recommended by the CSA and I could claim benefits, but we both think that would be incredibly irresponsible".

I really think you're in the minority there. Which benefits are you talking about anyway??

Would the resident-parents new partners salary be taken into account under this new system?

I can't see how you can have one and not the other.

Tax Credits.

I might be in the minority, but I might not be in a tiny minority. I know plenty of parents that pay maintenance privately, and there must be other RP's who would not be able to afford to bring up their children without those payments. In which case, they would need benefits, but don't as long as the NRP pays enough.

Hunty, I think you are wonderful!

I am in the very fortunate position of having an exH who pays reasonable maintenance on time every time. When he changed jobs last year he volunteered the information that his salary would increase by X so he would now be paying Y for the DDs. My sister however has a DS and her exP has never paid a penny, he's self employed and keeps vanishing for weeks to Thailand so the CSA can't catch up with him Something needs to be done about these scummy bastards.

To complete the round picture though, my DH and his ex have a joint residency agreement for DSD they have absolutely equal care of her, docs at her Mums, dentist and optician with us etc etc. Can you add a small addendum to your otherwise excellent plan to say that where there is genuine joint residency no-one can claim maintenance from each other? I am really getting hacked off with her asking for maintenance when she doesn't have to pay for anything that we don't

On that basis should a non-working RP not claim tax credits and instead say it's sufficient that her ex partner and current partner financially raise her child? Doubt that happens very often tbh

Yes, they should. And if possible, they should get a job themselves to avoid having to claim benefits. Like i did.

I know it won't always be possible, and that's what benefits are there for, but when it is possible, it should happen.

You say you doubt that happens very often, and you are probably right. But it would happen a lot more often if NRP's were made to pay a realistic amount of money to bring up their children.

CSA's current analysis is that my xh should pay £37.09 a week, for 2 children, oh life would be lovely if my 2 children only cost £74.18 a week!!

i think it should be based on how much it costs to bring up a child, not what meanial job/pt hours NRP's decide to take to shirk their resposibility to pay!

I wonder what a realistic amount of money to bring a child up is?

After having no maintenance for so long, I have got to the point which I imagine many RP's who receive nothing for a long time get to...I'd be happy to get anything at all.
I find myself feeling rather pleasantly surprised when XP pays for DD to get into softplay or buys her a drink from a shop, and it makes me angry that I have been reduced to being grateful for these crumbs of support.

littlemiss very true, if xh paid that amount it would be great, thats jsut what they say he should pay, i have recieved nothing for over a year!

The opinion that a working woman's income should be effectively diverted to her partner's DCs by a previous DW/DP may be unpopular with some people, but those people would be selfish people.

Why? How do you justify that statement?

Why is it selfish to not want to pay to raise a child that is not mine.

because that was being used in the case of the NRP taking on a SAHD role in his 'new' family, therefore not providing for his 'old' family. Some onus should be put on the NRP's partner to take some responsibility in paying for the children in the 'old' family, as if the NRP him/herself went out to work they would have to do. It was not used as an example for when the NRP is working, as obviously then the onus would be on them to provide for their own children.

makes sense to me stacey - everything else is based on household income not what one partner makes why different for child support? if he makes the lifestyle choice to be a sahd to his new children thereby freeing her to work and earn more wihtout the cost of childcare part of the disposable income generated should be passed on to his previous children.

Ok OP-I had the same problem with a deadbeat dad who was also a "job-hopper", and I have dealt with the CSA for 14 years, and am now getting maintenance after very many complaints. My ex owed over 14 grand in arrears.

They can actually find someone's job in 6 weeks not 12,but you need to be pro-active.Find out who your case officer is,their direct number and call them weekly.If they forget about you,you go to the bottom of the pile.If you don't get anywhere, go and complain to your MP.You can e mail your MP, by looking on the Parliament website or contacting their constituency office. Keep a log of every letter,phone call,time you spoke to anyone and name of person, if you have to speak to the CSA. In fact complain to your MP anyway

I assume there is some kind of maintenance assessment in place.If there isn't complain till you get one.

If there is a maintenance assessment in place,find out what the arrears are.Get the CSA to get a liability order which takes your ex to court and enforces the debt.If they have already done this then they should be enforcing it.

If he moves job as soon as a Detachment of Earnings Order is in place, then get the Enforcement Team to credit check him and find out where is bank account is.They can apply for an order to take money straight from his bank in regular sums if he hops jobs (think this is fairly new).If it has been to court for enforcement action and a liability order, the CSA can apply for a 3rd party Debt Order to take a lump sum from his bank.

They can also apply for a case officer to go to his home.They did this with my ex, and that spurned him into reaching an agreement with me,which worked for a while,but he stopped paying AGAIN, so back to CSA I went.

Baillifs are not always the best,but sometimes the shock of having baillifs turning up on his doorstep may scare him. They can use this to enforce as well. I did get some cash via baillifs :)

For anyone who is self employed, the CSA have the right to walk into any business and check the books,they don't often use it.

My kids are adults now, and I am still chasing arrears, and (fingers crossed) , I am getting them at the moment.

All I can say to anyone chasing maintenance is complain LOTS,hassle them weekly LOTS, if you get a payment and it has to be received by a certain date,make sure you phone the CSA to check payments have been received as employer is supposed to tell CSA within a few days that person is no longer working for them.Make CSA call employer for any none received payments etc etc.

Any more advice I can give in my 14 years experience of dealing with this eejit bunch,just ask.Actually present case officer I have got is great, probably cos he doesn't dare cross me :)

There seem to be many terrible NRPs out there who will try anything to avoid paying their way. It must be an awful position for the RP to be in, not to mention damaging to the children when they're old enough to understand.

What I'm not sure about is the idea that new partners' income should be taken into account.

Would it work the other way as well?

E.G. would a non-resident parent who earned a low wage still be expected to stump up 20% of it even if their ex had remarried a fabulously wealthy person who had provided them and their children with an amazing lifestyle, and was happy to do so?

Even if that meant the NRP was living in poverty as a result?

I realise this is not a common situation, but sometimes the assumption seems to be that the NRP should be happy to live in penury, even if their maintenance is a drop in the ocean.

I justify it with what Stacey said. It was in relation to a NRP becoming a SAHP for his second family.

The partner that would be expected to pay in that situation would want the benefit of having a SAHP, without having to finance that SAHP financial responsibilities.

If you have a family with someone that has already had children, then you make a choice to be part of providing for those children who don't have a choice.

slackSally tbh most of us RP's wouldnt be busting our balls to get maintenance from NRP if we had married somebody wealthy and didn't need the money.

I am not broke and can provide for my children without XH paying so it is not a major issue for me, but i am also not rich and cannot afford to save for my children future, so i spend countless time on the phone to CSA trying to get XH to pay for the chidren he fathered so i can hand them money to pay for uni/first car/first home