Killing off the CSA - a good thing??

[Freckle]

See \link{http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2205625,00.html\here}.

This is a Govt 'float' of the draft Henshaw report to judge the press reaction before committing to it as policy. Henshaw has taken one of the prominent internal-CSA views and proposed it as an outsider looking-in: about 18-months ago I was discussing approximately this line with the ex-Director of Administration at the CSA - he said he had departed on internal disagreements like this about how to slim down the agency.

But the fundamental problem was that the Govt could never write a sane formula for chopping up an absentparent's income to support the estranged family - and properly take account of the new relationships which both parents develop over time. Once the people doing the job inside the CSA see how daft it is, their energies for doing it properly are reduced - so nothing useful gets done and the backlog gets bigger. Then peole invade BuckinghamPalace, shin up Nelson'sColumn, throw unpleasantness at the PM - and the whole thing becomes a farce.

Attachment of earnings orders (hated by employers though they are) does seem to be the thing to do.

CSA will be unmourned imho.

I've always found it odd that any child living with the absent father (normally fathers being the absent parent) reduces the amount the father has to pay for his own children. If the child living with the absent father is not his child, why is that child's father not supporting it so that the absent father's own children do not suffer. It seems incredibly bizarre to me - and it must stick in the craw of most mothers.

I'm not sure who dreams up the rules, but my guess is that they have no real conception of what it is to be a single parent.

I could have done without reading this this morning

what an absolute fking nightmare

Love the way old Frank Field suggests that most people are grown up & accept their responsibilities!!!!!! What planet is this man on? Certainly isn't the UK in the 21st century.
The proposals sounds like a complete cop out to me. Most of the tight fisted gits who won't cough up are not eligible for detachment of earnings as they are SE or cash in hand.
GRRRRRR!

so if my situation isnt sorted by then does my ex partner get away with it?

It does sound like more people will get away with it. Mandatory deduction of earnings order would be far simpler.

Im in the middle of a deduction of earnings order so hopefully if it goes through it wont affect me

Sounds crap to me. If your ex partner makes a nominal payment, then that will be good enough?? I bet exp is p1ssing himself laughing over this one.

have to say I agree with the principle that this should be last resort - one thing that I have often wondered is whether by having such an agency you give the message that there is some "right" amount of money dictated by the state, thereby making people reluctant to come to a private agreement - in case they are paying too much/not getting enough. I don't know if this is the case but I have often wondered

For me it was a last resort, we both wanted our daughter. We both brought her into this world. I work to provide a good life for her, just because we have split up should her father not provide for her?

I'm sitting in work crying.
I can picture us 6 months down the line, no money from him struggling to pay the rent and having to work more hours. Then Ill have to pay more childcare and Ill hardly see my DD

TWHTSHAT - the CSA sums are pretty low & now even in divorce cases they are used as benchmark figures. So my ex-H thought it was perfectly acceptable to just give the children 20% of his net earnings. Lots of other ex-husbands out there doing just the same because they know that if they dig their heels in thats all the CSA would sting them for.
However doing away with the CSA completely means that those who are struggling to get anything at all, have to recourse to a higher power. What will they be left with?

WB - please don't cry. This is just a proposal, the CSA is still up & running. Your case should be sorted well before any changes come into effect.

he will drag his heels in I know what he's like

but if you are going for a detachment of earnings - its not up to him anymore. Please don't despair.

Ill phone them when I get home but no doubt they will be inundated with calls today

bugsy2 - guess I shouldn;t have said the "/not getting enough bit". But it is a conundrum - by having a body like this, like you say, it allows men (usually) to dig their heels in and go for a bare minimum. But obviously there is a need to have something that protects the ones who really need it. It's the lowest common denominator problem. I guess what's happened is instead of a system that allows absent parents to get away with paying nothing (pre- CSA) we now have a system that allows them to get away with not paying very much. I am not sure hwhat the answer is. WB - I hope your situation gets sorted.

The problem is the government doesnt know what the answer is either

TWWTSWAH - I think we are saying the same thing. I'm not sure what the solution is either but would like to see more expanded details for how they think the system will work without the CSA.

Me too, this statement has just confused a lot of people

The system which existed prior to the CSA was that all claims for maintenance were made through the magistrates' courts. IME, many magistrates have a far better idea of what it is like out in the real world than the faceless bureaucrats at the CSA who are simply applying a set formula.

I don't understand why this was removed from the magistrates, unless it was simply a question of the courts getting clogged up - but isn't that what's happened with the CSA now? Too many cases, not enough resources and very little will to do anything about it.