CSA reform - single parents to pay to use service - to be very angry!!

[timefliesby]

www.gingerbread.org.uk/news_detail.aspx?ID=235

So, the government is closing all existing child maintenance cases over the next three years and washing its hands of the £3.5 billion it has FAILED to collect on behalf of single parents. They say they'd like to give separated parents "the chance to come to a private arrangement" or failing that, all those single parents - you know, the ones that aren't getting anything for their children - to PAY to use the CSA. Yes that's right...pay to use the service which has FAILED to collect £3.5 billion owed. But just to hoodwink you into thinking you're getting a new service they'll rebrand it the CMS (wonder how much that's costing?).

Here's a revolutionary thought...the parents that are on friendly enough terms to agree a private arrangement have got a private arrangement already. Which harebrained, ignorant, idiot sat and looked at it and went "I know...we'll just get them to agree it between themselves"...no matter that some of them may have escaped just about with their limbs in place or endured years of control freak behaviour from the non-resident parent.

WHAT A JOKE!!!!

It used to be with the jurisdiction of the courts, because the only language these non-resident parents actually understand is "the bailiffs are going to be sent in" or "you will be going to prison.. if you don't adequately contribute to your children's upkeep."

Then the CSA came along and children suffered for it...now it's the CMS which is basically just the government's excuse to wash their hands of the whole debacle because which cash strapped, single parent can afford to pay for a service that fails to actually secure them any financial contribution towards their children???

Oh and the £3.5 billion is much lower than the figure would be had they actually made a maintenance decision on all those self employed fathers claiming they live on £600 a month whilst owning several companies...

DISCUSS PLEASE!

I agree that in most cases it should be easy for a single mother to get money for her child from the father.

why 'single mother'?

this is not an issue that only affects 'single mothers', is it?

if the father has made a reasonable suggested contribution in maintenance.

what does 'reasonable' mean? it means different things to different people. The bottom line is legally enforceable. No parent should be forced to accept less than that, surely?

Niceguy2, you have a point.

Might I point out that some (not all mothers) who are on benefits and have 3 kids to 5 different guys, their families are probably of the same mindset in getting something for nothing, so this will be 'socially acceptable' for them in the point of view of family/friends.

in the cases where the 'child maintenance' is not going towards maintaining the child (booze, fags and alike), then there needs to be a system of accountability or an electronic system where both parents can see where monies have been spent (rent, utility bills) and that that money has been spent of 'maintaining' the childs needs.

Yes, dear. Of course. Should I also be accountable to my boss as to how my wages are spent? The suggestion that maintenance is 'only' spent on booze and fags is a ridiculous one and, should 'accountability' be enforced, one that is 100% easily circumvented. How are you going to prove that the bottle of wine I drank last week came from 'your' money and not mine?!

I don't know about biased but Ime utterly incompetent.

What I also felt was that they only bothered with easy targets - DH, a good payer, was on their books for years, bank missed one payment, as soon as he was alerted he sorted it out, yet he was hounded for months and months, v aggressively.

But if you say you're not earning or are self employed the csa would leave you alone.

I seem to be on a roll....

I am not sure why PWC believe that they shouldn't have to pay for this service. It is not the tax payer's fault that we had children with a feckless man (or woman). My own experience with the CSA isn't a great one and it took 5 years before I got any money from them (or rather, my ex) but frankly, they saved me a fortune in sanity and legal feels which is what the alternative would be. I would not have been able to pursue it as far as they did because I couldn't have managed the stress on top of everything else. They are most welcome to a small percentage of what they have finally secured for me.

feupbutfine.

the CSA used to state that 15% for 1 child, 20% for 2 etc is a baseline, some RP accept that and some are out for all they can get. This works with some NRP who are willing to pay the baseline and there are some who avoid it.

There are some NRP who work hard and ensure that their children have maintenance, but there is nothing to stop the RP going out there and getting a job!

self employed the csa would leave you alone.

that's not true. Their hands are tied but they will pursue the self employed - took 5 years for me but they got there in the end.

Fed up why are you nit picking, I wasn't specifically wording, I didn't even notice I wrote single mothers. If I have to conform to the correct term police then read single mothers as 'resident parents'...

So you're skint and your kids parent won't pay, and you, the responsible one have to pay to get them to pay? Why not the feckless have to pay back for the service once completed? Why not make them pay an additional fee for every month the rp has to wait?

quite frankly all the systems the government introduces are sh1te. there are ways for all parties to exploit it and I cant see that charging a party 20% will make things better, in fact it will make them worse.

they do have to pay, John. Why do you think they don't? Far more than the PWC is having to pay - their bill is bumped up by 20%.

because it is an issue that doesn't only affect single parents? because being a resident parent doesn't necessarily make you a single parent (or indeed, vice versa). Because I feel it's a valid point to make?

There are some NRP who work hard and ensure that their children have maintenance, but there is nothing to stop the RP going out there and getting a job!

ah yes, that old chesnut. All PWC should just go out and get jobs and that would solve the issue, wouldn't it? Do fuck off.

Expecting the service for free was always wrong. If you wish to go via this route then a charge for the service is not unreasonable. When CM could be deducted from benefits it was recouping money so didnt need paying for.

Some use the CSA wisely but many use it as a weapon to threaten others with when they cant get their own way.

Some will have been married for a long time but there are thousands of women who have children in short term relationships, one night stands, an "accident" to trap the man etc with little thought as to the financial support they can offer a child. Many NRP dont pay but many PWC opt out of working and financially supporting children too yet its only wrong when its the NRP not paying.

I dont get the uproar, dont use the service if you dont want to pay for iy and use it if you do. If it encourages adults to behave like adults after a split and not use the children as pawns all the better.

I thought all historic claims were not to be collected unless the rp coughed up?

(And then they still will not be collected.)

Alita

The % they ask for are perfectly reasonable.

Your dsd living with you should make the amount he pays go down not up. Her having a disability should also reduce the amount he pays (the NRP can reduce payments if a disabled child resides with him the RP cannot get increased payments if the child claimed for is disabled).you might want to look into that.

Your friend, well he has exactly the same options to deal with contact as everybody else does,why make excuses for him? Contact and CM are not linked. If the child is not his then they refund the cost of the DNA test and everything he has paid.

Having just read the first part of your post there alita I think that your 'friend' may have spun you some lines there. It is very common for the father to deny paternity. The DNA test is there for him to prove he is not and therefore take him out of the maintenance equation - ergo if a man pays it it is likely he really believes he is not the father. Many men know they have made out their ex was cheating purely to garner sympathy when the man decides to do a runner. You simply cannot rely on a man's word to pay maintenance as many have found to their cost, which is why the CSA is so vital for single parents. My ex offered money but had already buggered about with amounts and not done it regularly, was having contact sporadically and was frequently hours late. It was not a stable situation and with a child you need to know maintenance is regular and not at the discretion of whether they 'feel like' paying it.
It is also not a pay per view system and your friend should not be begrudging paying for his child. Contact can be sought through the Court fairly easily for NRP and most times (unless ex has very extreme records of violence, and even in some of those cases) it is always granted. Basically if he really wanted contact this could be set up for him.
Sadly you could have described me in that first para - well, my ex's spin on what happened to us. My version is of course wildly different.
Many of us on the Lone Parents boards have been branded mental/money grabbing/difficult and it is part of this branding by the NRP to anyone who will listen which makes the single parent's plight so hard. They have the money for legal fees and influence, and often the single parent does not. Nor does the single parent usually have time or energy after looking after NRP's kids to fight for their rights.

He was told to contest it he had to pay several hundreds of pounds for a DNA test

If he couldn't afford the DNA test, he wouldn't have to pay it upfront. He could still have the test done.

Why should he have to pay when she refused money off him so that CSA would sting him, she won't let him see the child and it's not even certain that he's the father?

If he had the DNA test and was found not to be the childs father, he would either be reimbursed the test fee, or if he'd not been able to afford it and it was paid initially by the CSA, he wouldn't be liable for the costs.

The rest of that all sounds a bit 'he said, she said'

^CSA contacted the other ex who jumped at the opportunity to join in and said she would like to make a claim too.

Why did she jump at the opportunity if they had a private arrangement that was working?

They sent him an amount to pay based on a week he covered for someone else and earned £80 extra, so were trying to overcharge him massively, and they put the amount up when they found out dsd 3 lives with us

Surely the amount would be reduced if he had a child that lived with him?

"ah yes, that old chesnut. All PWC should just go out and get jobs and that would solve the issue, wouldn't it? Do fuck off"

well if theres nothing stopping why shouldn't you go out and get yourself a job to support your own children?? Why should the state pay when you have decided that you want children? using expletives is not a very productive comment!

I have a letter from Maria Miller (although she's gone now, I guess!) via my MP which very clearly states that every effort will be made to collect historic arrears, even when the case is moved over to the new system. I am not aware of any suggestion otherwise. Of course, how hard they try is a different issue but not every NRP has 'stuff' that can be used against them - I finally got maintenance at the point they were 3 days from repossessing my ex's home but obviously, not every NRP has a house (or if they do, care about whether it's repossessed for not).

well if theres nothing stopping why shouldn't you go out and get yourself a job to support your own children?? Why should the state pay when you have decided that you want children? using expletives is not a very productive comment!

why do you assume every PWC who claims maintenance through the CSA doesn't work?

I am not assuming that at all. it was a viable general question.

The op says that the 3.5 billion debts they failed to collect will be wiped out, I think.

I guess it remains to be seen, John. I will do everything I can do make sure my ex doesn't get let off his considerable arrears. Our children are young, there is a long way to go. It shouldn't be wiped out just 'cos he's manipulated the system. As I said, I have a letter from Westminster saying this isn't the case...watch this space?!