Is this true? WARNING DM link "Fathers to be hit by rise in maintenance..."

[TotalBummer]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2244303/Fathers-hit-rise-maintenance-children-following-sweeping-new-reforms.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

If it is, we are going to be in the sh!t AGAIN. Merry Christmas to all those Fathers who actually pay through the nose and can't afford to look after the family they have living with them AND we have our Child Tax credits taken off us to give to his ex who never let him see his DD in the first place.

I know there will be Mums out there who are shafted by their exes but it is ones like my DP and my kids who are being destroyed by the CSA. Bankruptcy looms.

Sorry - It just never ends. Money, money, money. They will take our house and our kids will be on the street and they DON'T CARE!

you're surely being deliberately obtuse now.

you said do i berate abused women i referred you to what i already said which was that it's not whether someone had an abusive relationship but whether they've processed, healed and dealt with the issues that contributed to them being in or staying in such a relationship.

You portrayed a man who had a child with a woman who ended up being spiteful and using her children as weapons, as weak. If you had any emotional intelligence yourself, you would realise than people are not always what they seem and can turn very nasty and abusive. I doubt many victims of physical abuse saw a big "I will end up battering you" sign around the necks of true partners. Emotional abusers don't wear these signs either, unfortunately. One does not have to be weak to be a victim of an abuser. Problem is, women don't find to like to think ghat other women can be abusive, hence yor use of words such ax "pantomime". Believe me, there is nothing funny about the way these children have been brought up. Nothing funny at all. Thankfully one of them is now having counselling. But you wont believe this, so I don't even know why I'm bothering to post it.

a lot of hyperbole and outright lies there so i'm not sure if i should be bothering to reply i never portrayed any such man - it is you who have been talking about such men and are either genuinely seeing things i haven't said or are deliberately pretending i've said things i haven't.

and again as i said (repeatedly) i wouldn't blame someone for being in an abusive relationship but if i was considering getting together with someone who had and who i may have children with i would want to be sure they had dealt with, processed and healed from the abuse and were not still entangled with their abuser.

so no i wouldn't personally have children with a man who had children with an abusive ex and had children living with her. i personally would not want my children near that kind of situation and wouldn't bring more children into it.

that isn't berating anyone. that is choosing what sort of relationship i'd want to be in and what i'd want my children exposed to.

My child is nowhere near her, believe me.

It must be nice for you in your smug world, good luck with that

my smug world? hmm. not sure about that.

i seem to have somehow become the outlet for all your anger and bitterness.

your child is near yours and your partners anger and bitterness over the whole issue though -i hope you temper it rather more with them than you have with me.

I don't have bitterness. Just because I describe a situation honestly and pity my DSSs, that has nothing to do with bitterness. Do you p ly come on mn threads if you're bitter about a topic? How odd

my real concern with the csa changes is that children whose fathers refuse to agree to a private arrangement because they won't have contact or because they can't be relied upon to pay privately, will be punished.

if you have no contact details for your child's father you cannot arrange a private payment scheme through no fault of your own and yet your child will get stealth tax deducted from their maintenance.

if you have an existing csa claim which they had to track the man down for to get him to pay they will cancel that and you will have no way of contacting him therefore no choice but to pay and restart the process (potentially waiting months without payment again) to have him pay only this time with money deducted from his payments by the collectors.

i guess i think that there should be a clause whereby if you are willing to have a private arrangement but the other party refuses or keeps breaking it all of the charges should be met by them not you.

Before the CSA I think there were court orders individually and if no payment then you send in the baililffs. Some mothers (or fathers) preferred that as they could act immediately there were a default instead of waiting months for the CSA to do anything about it - in other words you had power to enforce yourself and push it and chase it every day. Then the CSA came in and took over not always efficiently but much easier for parents without funds to go to court and send in their own bailiff etc.

I would imagine most people on a thread about child maintenance have been hurt. It is a very difficult and emotive topic.

swallowed, I have not read the new law but presumably if you have a private arrangement that could be a contract and if someone breaches a contract you go on line and sue them in a matter of minutes. If they do not pay you send in bailliffs. Bailiffs will recover not only the money owed but their fees and the court fees. However I am not sure if it will operate like that or not.

more concerned about the people who can't get private agreements and where children will be penalised for that.

a non rp refusing to pay should be the one who is punished with fees, not the children.

I think the new system is that the parent applying pays £20 and 7 - 15% charge on the maintenance.

I think there is no reason in law a written agreement between parents even if not endorsed in a court order is not a binding legal contract and if the other parent does not pay you go on to moneyclaimsonline sue and then bailiffs can get your money. Yet I had seen a few places saying there was no right to enforce if it were a private arrangement which I would think was not so.

but you have to get the agreement in the first place.

the csa does not tell you where the father lives - you may have no way of contacting him whatsoever if he doesn't see his children.

Yes, if you cannot reach agreement and of course it can equally be a mother paying a father too - then you will need to use the CSA and pay the new fees.

my argument is that in a situation where one party would willingly have a private agreement but the other will not it should be the one who will not who pays all the fees. why should a child have to lose money from their maintenance because an nrp refuses to pay except if forced by an agency? all costs should fall on them, not the child.

point is i've no problem with penalising people for refusing to voluntarily pay for the upkeep of their own children - i would personally treat non payment of maintenance like non payment of tax and make it criminal and fast track the prosecution process much as the local authority has power to do with non payment of council tax. what i have a problem with is the money coming out of the child's maintenance rather than the non payers pocket. the proposals see both the child and the non payer paying.

Yes, they should increase the % due from the parent by the amount of the charges exactly as you do if you sue someone - you recover the sum and the costs of recovering it. Presumably the one off £20 charge is not the major issue but the 7 - 15% on going collection charge is. So I wonder what the CSA promise for their 7% fee? An estate agent managing a property they let for you does not promise the rent will always be paid but are still entitled to their 8% or whatever. However there will be some basic standard applied to them such as they check references and I presume it's the same with the CSA,

Thanks Santa (great user name btw, I do love a lot bit of Tim ), I know allnew didn't ask but I had a feeling that's where it was going and I thought maybe it might help explain why it's not as simple as just having children of school age when you are trying to organise childcare - in fact it would be easier, logistically, if they were all pre-schoolers.

The biggest problem that I have with making a private arrangement in my own situation is that I have no idea where or when my XP works, no idea of his lifestyle etc in order to estimate his income, so if he were to offer to make a private arrangement then I have no idea if what he offers to pay is a reasonable amount. In fact, he did originally offer to pay £100 a month. For three children. So yes, I refused that offer and went to the CSA (although I would have been happy for him to pay me directly, he chose to pay via the CSA when he was actually paying). Their assessment was £150 a month, so clearly his original offer was not reasonable, but using the CSA was the only way I could find that out iyswim.

WRT the charges, afaik the CSA don't promise anything for the 7% charge that will be levied at PWC when the NRP does not pay them directly. Their consultation document stated specifically that the reason for the charge against the PWC is to act as an incentive for them to go back to direct payments if the NRP requests it. given that the charge will only be levied if the NRP doesn't pay directly, I think it's really unfair not only to charge the PWC in the first place, but also to expect them to agree to go back to direct payments at the NRP's request. FWIW, those charges are for the basic level of collection, ie when the NRP voluntarily makes payments to the CSA via card payments, standing order etc. There will be further charges against the NRP if the CSA has to move to DEO and court action.

i agree it's unreasonable to expect a pwc to go back to private payments upon request from nrp when the nrp has a history of not paying and pissing about stopping payments. a pwc on the bread line can't afford that gamble and the subsequent delays in having to go back to the csa and start all over again.