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

thanks sockreturningpixie, is there any way of finding out if my ex is claiming this discount?

Attila the Hun some reading for you.

Pregnancy, children and domestic violence

Sometimes domestic violence begins ? or increases ? during pregnancy. During this perilous time, your health and the baby's health are at risk. The danger continues after the baby is born. Even if your child isn't abused, simply witnessing domestic violence can be harmful. Children who grow up in abusive homes are more likely to be abused and have behavioral problems than are other children. As adults, they're more likely to become abusers or think abuse is a normal part of a relationship. You might worry that seeking help will further endanger you and your child or that it might break up your family, but it's the best way to protect your child ? and yourself.

I shouldnt pay the CSA a penny as I had no choice but to use them. My X was abusive and wouldn't pay maintenance, so the CSA sorted it out.

The DWP consultation ends this Friday. It's a 40+ page document but if those worried can spend a few minutes responding with objections it might minimise the damage they are trying to do. They're going to shove it through regardless but it's worth a try.

Thank you for that Meglet. I have e-mailed my thoughts to them

smells yes just call and ask them if any variations have been granted to the nrp.

A NRP can ask for a variation and reduction for

costs assoc with contact

boarding school fees contributed towards (not just for there own child)

mortgage/debt/endowments if the pwc has the property or assets that the funds are used for and nrp is paying due to court order.

having a disabled child resident with him.

if property or funds were given to the pwc pre 2003.

a PWC can apply for a variation and increase for

lifestyle inconsistant with declared income (has to be megga)

if nrp has assests not inc house or company assets worth over 65k

income not taken into acc (if morew than 1 job or hes a director and uses dividends to avoid liability)

diverted income (if he gives money to anybody else to hide it)

most of the pwc options have to mean the nrp needs more than 100pw diverted/not declared ect to be concidered but any deductions the nrp can get do not rely on his expenditure being more than 100 pw

intrestingly a pwc cannot ask for more if the dc concerned is disabled nor if they meet the costs of contact.

MakeItALarge andSoftKittyWarmKitty you are of course right but the CSA (and the "right" to maintenance ) was only set up in the 1990's because of the growth in lone parents and the costs involved. As it is now a quarter of all families that are lone parents something will inevitably change.

My point about money "you wouldn't have" had still stands. I find the current system supports me and my child without the need for payments from the NRP. Yes I could save the money for my child if I got any but I can't see how it's going to be sustainable to fund lone parents through the benefits system and effectively run a savings scheme for the dependents. It's not about moral rights but how you make two people that don't get on look after a child without draining the system.

And lone parents come from many different circumstances. I really dislike the assumption that lone parents are desperately poor victims of some terrible relationship.

allthefun If I were to get a decent amount of maintenance (because I'm sorry, but in no-one's world is £2.50 a fortnight 'decent') then it would go towards food, heating, clothing for DS etc. That way, I might not have to go into my overdraft every month just to survive. Savings scheme? Don't make me laugh.

It's not about moral rights but how you make two people that don't get on look after a child without draining the system.
I suspect that for many people using the CSA it's not that they 'don't get on', but that the NRP is non-compliant at best and financially/physically abusive at worst. We're talking about NRPs that DON'T GIVE A SHIT. You think that charging for the service will suddenly make these people play nicely? Think again. I, for one, don't even know where my ex is. But no doubt that's my fault and my problem too.

maintainance is not a savings scheme for children, its intended to contribute towards the day to day care of a child.

in all liklyhood the parents who do save it up for dc's are the ones who are not broke or not on any benefits.

the right to funds towards maintaining kids has been around a lot longer than the 90's and pre exists the csa.

SoftKittyWarmKitty isn't that's why the CSA was set up. To make both parents responsible for the cost and not the government. As it doesn't work like that the system bails out lots of lone families. Obviously it depends on how you came to be a lone parent (divorce would be different financially to separating or a causal fling) but in my experience I am better off financially as a lone parent.

So what would happen if I ever found my ex? If I take his money to live on
should I give back my student grants/ housing benefit? Or take it and save it as it is for my child. We can live comfortably on what I get BTW.

the right to funds towards maintaining kids has been around a lot longer than the 90's and pre exists the csa

So how did you get a father to pay maintenance pre CSA if he wasn't on the birth certificate exactly?
Now they attempt to track him down, pay for a DNA and take the money if proved. That's a lot for a woman on her own to do.

This.....

softwarmkitty I suspect that for many people using the CSA it's not that they 'don't get on', but that the NRP is non-compliant at best and financially/physically abusive at worst. We're talking about NRPs that DON'T GIVE A SHIT.

Once the reality of parenting kicked in my EX didn't give a shit. The CSA have at least been able to salvage some financial stability for me and the DC's.

The Tories damn well know they are going for an easy target with this one. They bloody well know single parents are too busy to fight this effectively. The don't care that victims of domestic abuse will lose out when the charges kick in.

it was intended to do a few things.

reduce pressure on the family court system,
force nrp's who wouldnt pay to do so,
make the system fairer,
recoup benefits paid out.

you dont need to be on benefits to use it

you may be very intrested to do a few serches as to why they now let benefit claiments keep cm without benefit reduction. its intresting reading and fairly eye opening.

if you recive hb you are not comfortable, you are part of the working poor.

cm is money to assist you to maintain your child not money directly for your child. there is a difference.

dont claim it if you dont want but just because you dont want it, it shouldnt mean you get to say others shouldnt.

you got it by asking him.

or via family court.

the csa was intended to make it easyer. just because it was even harder dosnt mean the right wasnt there.

Sockreturningpixie
Just quickly though - just because it was even harder dosnt mean the right wasnt there. Having the right means nothing if it's not enforceable though surely. The CSA enables you find a father, to prove he's the father and to instigate payments.

dont claim it if you dont want but just because you dont want it, it shouldnt mean you get to say others shouldnt
Who's saying others shouldn't claim? I pointed out that losing 7% of something was better than getting bugger all.

Allthefun The CSA does have enforcement powers but they very rarely use them. They have the power to take non-paying NRPs to court, remove their driving licences and passports and send to prison. It's extremely rare for any of these measures to be undertaken, even in cases of serial non-payment. So the CSA has teeth but rarely bites. The system has been forced to 'bail out' lone parent families because the organisation put in place to facilitate child maintenance payments - the CSA - is next to useless. If they sort it out properly and put enforcement measures in place, and use them, more lone parents would get child maintenance.

Agreed. I just think that it's fair enough that the users of the system pay for the system.

Just like every other essential service in this country.

I agree that the 'service' (such as it is) needs to be paid for but the parent who refuses to make a voluntary agreement should be the one that pays. I'd be willing to set up an agreement with my ex, but he refuses to pay voluntarily. Why, then, should I be the one to pay the application charge and ongoing fee?

I wonder if there is an element of 'recouping' benefits paid for children that are being supported by maintenance, inherent within the principle of charging Pwc. The only reason they started disregarding benefits was the difficulty in ensuring the cm was actually paid. So if they deduct a percentage at source, that on effect recoups it?

softkitty.

but if the pwc requests it because the nrp has not made payments after a private arangement should the pwc pay? because if its the parent who requests it then thats what would happen.

they are also charging the nrp's a ongoing fee but ofcourse they only pay that if they pay anything at all but the pwc pays the upfront fee even if the csa get no payment from the nrp

but if the pwc requests it because the nrp has not made payments after a private arangement should the pwc pay? because if its the parent who requests it then thats what would happen.

No, the NRP should pay as they are the one not adhering to the private arrangement.

then i agree with you.

The problem will come when they raise the payments for the NRP. I am terrified what XP will do when they take more money from him as he will hit the roof and we will be in the firing line. I can budget on what he currently pays us and can manage until the DC's are 18.

I do not want his payments increased, I don't want him to have to think about us at all ever again, and I want to keep our heads down and safe. The CSA are going to put us at risk by messing with the system .

Attilathehun - no they often become twats when they start using their dick for a brain, this often happens soon after an affair and when there mates down the pub tell them they shouldn't be paying this and they should be doing that and the other.

CSA are a catalogue of disasters, they have written to my ex and told him he no longer worked and therefore didn't have to pay any more - he had no idea about not working and nor did his boss.

They paid the money they collected from him - to someone else one month

They couldn't speak to me one day the phone as they couldn't verify who I was - the reason was they had lost all my bank details and the questions they needed to ask me to verify who I was were about my bank details and they didn't have the answers - so they didn't know if I was telling them the correct answers, but it did answer the question I wanted to ask - which was why haven't I received any money this month - which would be due to them losing my bank details and therefore not being able to put money in the bank I guess

and they want me to pay for this crap service

So how did you get a father to pay maintenance pre CSA if he wasn't on the birth certificate exactly?

how far back do you want to go?

1800's and you would be looking at parish poor relief and bastardy bonds - go to court and a woman would swear on oath that the man was the father. list here The parish had to pay for the upkeep of a pauper and if they cold get a father to pay so much the better for the funds