to think that these changes to Child Support will cause financial strain and make financial abuse worse.

[Darkesteyes]

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.

www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/oct/20/threat-child-maintenance

'There are PWC that abuse the CSA system and use it as a weapon when they are not getting their own way. They deny receiving private payments or simply just want to cause hurt.'

So this is a reason to punish everyone?

This all makes me glad I made the decison 5 years ago not to even try getting my ex to pay anything toward his child. It would all have been unnecessary stress and the outcome would have been the same either way i.e. no maintenance or support. I'm not a defeatist, I just want us to be happy.

The whole system is rigged against women. Fighting it will only hurt me more. I don't care what those idiots in power think about single parents, their opinion is a pile of shit.

expat

its not even a reason its called fraud

A spokesman for the DWP defended the decision to deduct fees from the maintenance collected, saying: "There's plenty of evidence that the CSA has been used by some parents as a weapon against another parent. That's why ministers felt it necessary to have charges on both sides."

This is a government-created agency, the use of which was mandatory. When I was a L.P I was made to pursue a claim for child support or would not have been entitled to benefits.

How the fuck are people abusing it? There is a set formula which isn't unreasonable and if there are flaws it's down to them to sort it out.

After ten years of XH and the CSA fucking about he pays £5 between his three children - £1.66 per week for DD. That isn't even a hundred pounds a year so I will have to cancel the claim or be out of pocket. I don't think I will though because DH and I can afford not to and XH got away with paying zilch for a decade, not to mention the cost in time and phone-calls over the years.

I'm spiteful like that

They are not punishing people, they are simply intending to charge for a service that people use.

It used to be the case that benefits were reduced by maintainance so the government had an active interest in the CSA. Now benefits are kept in addition why should they still continue to do it for free? Two parent households have both incomes taken into place so its sheer madness that if they split they have can have a percentage of that income not used in calculations and on top of that they want it managing and collecting for free?

Better to charge for this service than cut an area like education or nurses.

Fine, charge. Charge the feckless Cunts who don't think they should have to pay for their children.

Exactly, Mulberry. Or do what they do in the US and take it off their pay before they get their hands on it and charge them for that, too.

If they don't pay, they get their professional licenses revoked, their driving license revoked or go to jail.

I know one man who didn't pay, his daughter sued him when she turned 18 and he went to jail.

Not paying for children you brought into the world is an offense there in some states.

no happy 2 parent nrp housholds do not have both incomes taken into account and havent for many years.

the only income that is taken into consideration is the actual nrp's earned income,benefits and if and only if he is named as part of a joint claim (and he actually informs them as he has no actual obligation to do so unless directly asked) any working tax credits( but not ctc) after dependant deductions are removed.

unless your meaning the household where the child lives in that case its only if any means tested benefits are recived that incomes are taken into concideration. child maintainance is not a benefit and if the household has any cm that is paid out that is taken into concideration and protected by other benefit agencies inc hmrc. and anyother debt repayment or court.

not all single parents are on benefits but all nrp's who do recive any state benefit get cm reduced to £5 pw for each benefit (only after variation a standered assesment will only calculate one £5) and ontop of any benefits they get to earn £100pw without it even being concidered ever as to have a variation none declaired/or none assesed income has to be over 100pw after deductions)

Agree parents should pay for a child they chose to have and would welcome a decent law that enforces that if it makes BOTH parents provide support not just the NRP.

Its quite amazing how many PWC berate NRP's for not paying or not paying enough yet are on benefits so actually paying nothing themselves. There have always been double standards.

If the starting point was 50/50 re custody after a split then neither side would need to pay and both parents would be equals.

I asked exh for 20 pounds per week when we seperated, he wouldn't pay.
Csa awarded us 152 pounds per month which they collect from his pay, I can't see him continuing with this voulantary if he wouldn't even pay the 20 pounds I asked for in the first place.

happy if a nrp is on benefits they only have to pay £5 a week the pwc will be expected to use more of there money irrespective of its source.

do you have any concept of just how many nrps will then say 'ohhh i never wanted a kid in the first place'? loads and much more likly in evaders.

if you dont want a child either dont have sex or take responsability for your own contraception do not rely soley on the other party,if its that important to you.

posts like that make you sound like a compleate twat.

Name calling because i believe both parents should pay for a child, how absolutely terrible of me.

If the starting point was 50/50 re custody after a split then neither side would need to pay and both parents would be equals.

hmm 50/50 custody -
when the arse cancelled them, half an hour before he should have picked them up from school, whenever Man U were playing at home on the 1 night a week he could be arsed to see them,

when he took them to the pub drank 3 pints gave them money to play on the slot machines while he ignored them then put them in his car and drove them home,

when he left them at the Holiday Club on the one weekend a month he could be arsed to have them turning his phone off so he didn't have to take responsibility for the phone calls from the holiday club or from me. then to deny it was ever his weekend,

giving them mobile phones and letting them run wild round butlins age 5 and 7 until gone 1 in the morning on the last ever time they stayed overnight.

50/50 custody...I don't think so.

no because you saying that a nrp should only pay if he wanted the child in the first place made you sound like a twat. not that you are a twat.

if i was name calling i would have actually called you a twat or would you prefer that i call it a compleaty stupid badly thought out surgestion that compleatly removes one parents responsability for there own sexual health and future financial obligations, at the same time as giving every single cm evader a get out free card with regard to something that is practicly impossible to either prove or disprove?

actually your quite correct that is a much better way of putting it. concider it said.

no system works for a**eholes though

sock it looks to be that you are deliberately twisting what happymummy said

Its quite amazing how many PWC berate NRP's for not paying or not paying enough yet are on benefits so actually paying nothing themselves. There have always been double standards.

Thats because the PWC is at home caring for their kids. Of course if they do decide to go back to work maintenance will obviously have to be increased to cover the cost of childcare.
What are you Happy. A surrendered wife or a politician.

Happy your posts reek of mysogyny and woman blaming.

mysogyny? - she suggested that mothers and fathers should be both equally responsible for caring and payment towards children.

When my ex h retired at 52 from a state job his child support stopped ( I had it taken directly from his wages through our CSA as he didnt like to pay ). The child support only stopped as the company he worked for were no longer paying him. CSA sent a letter to his old company and to him wanting to know why no more payments and demanding to know where he was working now

First month of non payment was lost to paperwork,second and third month they reported him to the credit bureaus,black marks on his credit report etc. The fourth month he got a letter saying until hed paid up he could not renew his drivers license, professional license or passport and every month it was reported to the credit bureaus.

He finally took me back to court to have it reduced as hed retired. He was told in court that day that unless he paid all the arrears immediately that they would put him in jail :o He did

Oh and btw the judge told him to get another job :o. Normal people couldnt retire at 52 and there was no way his kids were going to suffer cos he wanted to retire :o Then he upped his child support :o:o:o

They do chase very hard for child support here as it keeps the welfare bill down.You will go to jail for non payment.They will take your tax returns etc and stop license renewals. There is even a "DEADBEAT" dad web site with pictures of the States top non payers and they hunt them all over the country not just in the state your in

In this state too if you quit your job to avoid payment it wont cut it.You will be told to get a new 1 or held in contempt.

Id say our system works

old trout

all new Happy was slagging off single parents for being on benefits. Considering that most single parents are female then yes i would say thats woman blaming.

after 6 yrs of doing it on my own asked ex for £20 a week,he has no contact ever his choice

said he couldnt afford it,he brings home £500 a week his other kids all grown so no other dependents,he is single and likes to think he's a bit of a playboy

went to csa,denied he was ds father so had dna,he was as we all bloody knew now has to pay £74 a week,dickhead should of paid the £20

anyway has been paying for 2mths get a call this morning my money is going down,didnt take him long to see to that

under this new system i hardly think he will be paying a regular amount do you??

allnew you have a point, but think of it this way

in your suituation the pwc lost out because she used the csa your household ended up paying her less than she had from the private arangement. her loss for being a twat/arsehole.

in my suituation.
in brief had a consent order that required me to sign over more than 750k worth of assets in exchange for a small monthly maintainance sum £45pcm that my ex decided was fair,i kept up my end he didnt. due to him reciving a army disablement pension he was told he had to pay me £5pw with a additional £1 to cover arrears as the csa took 10 months to asses him 6 years down the line the csa have been able to prove without doubt a small amount of badly hidden income from the company i gave him and have now said he has to pay me £76 every 4 weeks plus an additional £60 arrears(they have also backdated this new amount about 14 months as thats how long they took to prove it) untill his arrears are paid off. another aspect of the variation (diverted income) is still waiting to be decided on. (he is actually loaded). he wont pay this untill hes forced to but he will be forced to eventially
end result will be arsehole pays so it will have worked even if we never get the diverted income taken into account.

incidently i have never claimed benefits in my life apart from child benefit for 1 of my children as the csa requires a child to be in recept of or elligable for cb to get involved irrespective of pwc's entitlement to it.(not relivant at all unless anybody is going to accuse me of not being financially responsable for my kids)