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

agree parents should pay for a child they chose to have

not twisting she said that.

she also decided that all single parents with care reciving or asking to recive maintainance are none contributors towards there dc's as its the benefits who pay.

not twisting she also made that point

You were twisting. Her point, as I read it, was that both parents chose to have the child and therefore that both parents should be responsible.

opps just noticed i missed the word many in the pwc dont contribute as they are on benefits post.[opps]

but lots of pwc are not on benefits and in my experance a huge majority of the pwc i come into contact with who are on benefits dont recive anything in cm or get £5pw (the same ammount allowed to be kept in the old days when they took benefits off you) granted my contact with pwc is biased in that direction as most of it where i would be aware of finances is domestic violence related.

darkest nrp's child maintainance payments are not increased at all if the pwc has childcare costs.

I was only on benefits for a little while when DD was an older baby, but I was parenting. I raised DD far more effectively than state care could have. XH financially and physically abandoned her. If anything happened to me or if I just felt like buggering off and resuming my well-paid career / nice social life / freedom it would have been far more expensive both in the short AND in the long-term.

I think that counts as taking responsibility, perhaps not all of it because I was unable to work for a while, but it's 100% more than her other parent ever has.

ofcourse both should be, but benefits is not a cm relivant point when it comes to responsability, nor is both parents chosing to have a child.

i read it (the same as another poster) as you only have to be responsable if you chose to and if one parent would prefer not to then he shouldnt have to (not a unheard of comment on mn).

if thats a incorrect interpritation of the post then im happy to apoligise for that aspect of it.

but im not going to apoligise for calling someone on an assertion that single parents are feckless benefit claiments who dont support there children,because its not true

I never said nrp should not pay, i said BOTH parents should pay as they chose to have a child. But twist away.

There is no reason for a PWC to not work simply because they have a child and it is double standards to moan about lack of money from a NRP if not earning themselves. Having children doesnt mean a person cant work, millions of parents do. Most expect to as having a child comes with financial responsibilities as well as caring ones.

PMSL at being women hating and a surrendered wife for daring to suggest parents actually work to support their offspring.

thekids you do have the right to appeal if its been reduced due to a variation or travel and unless the travel for contact is huge a tribunal will usually find in your favor that rule is not really intended to be used for pissy little perfectly reasonable distances

sock

thanks,they said because his wage has gone down

only 2 times has he seen ds in 6yrs so the travel part dosent come into it

thanks though

ok if you didnt mean that then i compleatly apoligise (i would have phrased it differently and just said they both have a child thus removing any confusion) however i do indeed apoligise for focasing on the word chose.

re the benefit thing as you do point out millions of lone pwc do work so do financially support children,it is my understanding that according to dwp and hmrc there are more lone parents in work than not.

so benefits have nothing at all to do with a disscussion about the csa unless ofcourse the only people who can complain about ex's hiding funds,refuseing to pay ect first have to state that they themselves work.

a huge huge amount of none payers (now i am apsolutly not including decent ones who do pay and are responsable) are also contact pissarse abouters those who rarely bother or actually only want minimum contact (according to gingerbread and echo'd by most dv orgs) so are not even taking care responsability for the kids. so no care nor financial responsability and bugger all a pwc can do about it.

if a pwc refuses to provide financially for a child and negates carer responsabilities its a cp issue without fail.

I thought that working was better too Happy. I returned from ML when DD was two months old and stopped when she was a year old because she started to have serious health problems.

Paying CM, travel and for lazy, abusive XH / his debts for that time caused me to lose my house. Until the homelessness and the hospital stays were settled I would have been poor-value indeed for an employer assuming they would hire me. luckily it was sorted within the year.

During all this XH was at Mummy's being fed and watered while his DD lived with no heating on top of a life-threatening condition.

Damn right I'm going to PAY to get that £1.66 per week taken out of his pocket money!

HappyBubbleBrain I've come so close to giving up on the CSA so many times. The constant phone calls to them, letters to the CSA and my MP, the total despair when I'm told time and again we've lost your notes/we haven't progressed your case any further than the last time you rang/your ex has left his job etc etc just leaves me in total and utter despair at the futility of it all. I've only kept going for two reasons - one, so when he's older I can tell my DS that I didn't give up trying to get his dad to take his financial responsibilities seriously and two, because I firmly believe that both parents should contribute financially to a child's upkeep. When the charge comes in next year there won't be any point paying £100 fee (or whatever the final fee ends up being) to just get £5 per fortnight, minus my 'monthly charge' .

For the posters slating single parents on benefits, well have you seen the cost of childcare, or noticed that there are hardly any jobs around, or thought that single parents might want to stay at home and raise their children for a few years? You know, like SAHPs with partners do?

What right royally fucks me off in this society is that kids of SPs are scapegoated blamed for riots, crime and social disorder and we are frequently told our children will be unhealthier than those with two parents still together, that they'll be educationally substandard and will be one of life's failures. According to society/the government/the media, this is our fault because we are useless, neglectful parents who don't spend enough time with our kids and don't teach them decent values that two parents apparently manage oh so brilliantly. Yet single parents are forced to look for work when their youngest is 5, just starting primary school and need their parent's reassurance more than ever. So we are supposed to work, yet still be available to bring up perfect children that will be a credit to society. Not sure about anyone else, but I find it impossible to be in two places at once. Single parents on benefits are vilified. I went back to work full time when my DS was 5.5 months old, and I have, in the past, been vilified for that because my son was in FT childcare. The fact is, we can't win. In our society single parents can't do right for doing wrong.

This fucks me off because in many cases we are the only parent that gives a shit about our kids. Despite us often being the one parent that feeds, clothes, and houses them, keeps them warm, looks after them when they're ill, helps with their homework, help them build friendships, ferry them around to clubs, scrimp, save, make sacrifices and go without so they can have things they need - despite all this, it is ALWAYS OUR FAULT. Our fault for being on benefits, our fault for working and neglecting our kids, our fault for society's ills...hell, it's even our fault for being single parents in the first place! It's NEVER the fault of the parent that walks away without so much as a backwards glance, leaving a trail of devastation in their wake. It is THESE parents that should be vilified, not the ones that do their best day in, day out to raise kids on their own. Until this is the case and society/the media/the government treat these absent parents with the utter contempt they deserve, and they are forced to take responsibility for their offspring, nothing will change.

Sock

Sigh in that case I know what happen he apply to CsA to have it varied for petrol costs and because judge told him the two days a month he sees them that he has to feed them lunch out of his own pocket

So I end up in a minus sum paying for something I won't see a penny of

And no he is married agai. And has a baby and expecting again

Happy mummy remember everyone Differnt and guess what I. Eyes of law I do work I get carers allowance due to my sons Sn which they deduct most from my income support

Also 50/50 only works if parents live neat each others as how does schools work otherwise oh and if gh nrp wants that in my case did not he has 6 hours twice a month but occasionally only has 4 his choice

Let's also talk about these dads who not paying much who go on to have more kids !! But hey he is married their child brought up with a mum and dad which means not called feckless but I am

I didn't think the op was asking about the rights and wrongs of maintenance but how valid a service charge is.

I don't see that 7% of money you wouldn't normally be getting is that harsh. The NRP is in line for a 20% charge if they don't pay up. It costs nothing if you can sort it yourself.

I can see it's an expensive service. The DNA testing for example is a great service. It's free to the PWC ATM but I'd be happy getting 7% less of any maintenance (that is only possible if I can prove my case)to be able to able to get the truth. The NRP should still pay for the test if positive but I don't expect something for nothing.

I don't see that 7% of money you wouldn't normally be getting is that harsh.
Those SPs not currently receiving maintenance may not be getting money but they should be. And the charge is taking money from the children it's meant to be for. How is that not harsh?

The NRP is in line for a 20% charge if they don't pay up. Eh? How are they supposed to charge someone who avoids paying at all costs?

It costs nothing if you can sort it yourself. Of course. But as mentioned up thread, most people use the CSA because they have no choice - their ex has disappeared, or refuses to pay, or was violent. How are they supposed to 'sort it' themselves?

This has puzzled me a bit but why does it seem that so many people have children with partners who are the dregs of society.

Do they only become twats after the children come along?

Am I understanding this correctly, NRPs can get a reduction for travel costs if they have to pick up the DCs?

i think (but i could be making it up as i have been having weird dreams recently) the preposed initial fee is £20.

i have huge huge problems with charging a pwc any fee's to obtain maintainance for a child. (in the absence of a pwc comiting fraud charge the ones who do that and proceed via criminal courts)

if the nrp is evading,lying,or intentionally reducing liability stick them with huge charges not the pwc.

I think the Pwc should pay the fee in the instance that they want to use the service despite the NRP wanting a private arrangement.

smells yes they can if its a significant distance even if the pwc drives the kids.

i have a ex who attempted to get a variation for 4 miles worth of travel,he was turned down.

and he was not a arse at all untill we parted company

I was with my ex for four years and he left me for someone else when I was four months into a planned pregnancy. He chose not to be involved with DS and refuses to pay maintenance voluntarily. When DS was 1 I found out that my ex had conceived two older children with two different mothers while we were together and I'd known nothing about it. So yes, my ex was a twat at the very bottom of the dregs of society while we were together, however like most cheating shits, he successfully hid his double life from me. Honestly, you couldn't make it up.

allnew what if the nrp only wants the private arangement as its unenforcable or due to wishing to hide income or the pwc can prove the nrp has not paid?

incidently i do agree that if the pwc commits fraud by claiming the nrp hasnt paid when they have the pwc should pay.

I used to sit in an ivory tower once looking down on those silly women who got themselves pregnant by men who would then leave and not support them.

(full time working single mother providing all financial support for 3 DC btw.... just hoping one day for a crumb from the father ....aka bitch maliciously bleeding him dry I guess)