Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

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

396 replies

timefliesby · 19/03/2014 14:31

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!

OP posts:
EffectiveCommunication · 21/05/2014 18:15

I totally agree it is child abuse, a resident parent doing the same as a non paying non resident parent would be prosecuted for neglect. If a non resident parent can be fined for non attendance at school, and not receiving an education, then why are they not held responsible for other things?

Happybeard · 21/05/2014 18:16

Happyoneofmum: who decides to have a child based on whether they could afford to care for the child if they split up and their partner didn't pay CM? Confused that's bizzare. Barely anyone would have any children if that were the case.

I agree re RPs paying though. DH's ex loves to bemoan his "measly" salary and "pathetic" CM contributions when all the while she's sat around on her arse all day contributing zero financially with one teen who spends half her time here.

There's a lot of anecdotal from both sides but move all of the "not all men" and "some RPs" etc. off the table and in essence there is only one way to solve this problem and that is to make CM just like a tax. Absolutely no reason why one government department can't talk to the other and draw money from earnings. For those self employed they could pay based on an estimate and then pay the balance at the same time as they pay their tax return and if they don't pay, lock em up.

TheGirlFromIpanema · 21/05/2014 18:19

This

Of course NRP should pay but so should the PWC. The amount of PWC who slate the NRP for not paying when they dont either is outstanding

for instance

just doesn't make sense Hmm Who is paying for all these children then? Even with the highest numbers for people on benefits then there are still surely over a million children in lone parent families receiving no state support and no maintenance.... a point worthy of discussion no?

Alita I take nothing away from your tale. I believe you.

Not really appropriate for this discussion though is it?

Do you genuinely think that your tale of one NAMALT (thanks lion Grin that's exactly what I meant) means there is no problem? In general? At all?

Really?

alita7 · 21/05/2014 18:20

I do have some words of warning though... If your ex goes to prison for not paying then the state pays for his living costs while hes not paying you and he then has a criminal record so his chances of a good job decrease... so then it's more likely that you'll never see the money because he may never be able to get a job to pay for it!

BomChickaMeowMeow · 21/05/2014 18:21

So which private business will profit from this? Capita? G4S? ATOS?

TheGirlFromIpanema · 21/05/2014 18:24

I'll have a fiver on crapita bomchicka Grin

NatashaBee · 21/05/2014 18:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

AmberLeaf · 21/05/2014 18:25

Ultimately it is unfair to make the PWC pay for the CSA [or whatever it will be called] to collect CM when they as an organisation are so utterly toothless when it comes down to it and there are no moves to make the system more like that of other countries where real and harsh penalties apply if a RP won't pay up.

YoureBeingASillyBilly · 21/05/2014 18:25

Havent read the thread.

I knew this was coming but it actually disgusts me. There is no logic other than money saving/making for the Govt.

Children will suffer.

alita7 · 21/05/2014 18:27

ipanema I see what you're saying, but I think the point I was making was that there are nrps who do everything they can not to pay when they can afford to, there are nrps who pay as much as they can, there are nrps unfairly charged more than they can afford due to their situation, there are rps who exploit the system and mess the nrp around, there are nrps who also shag around etc, the are rps who fiddle things and claim that their children don't spend nights with the nrp when they do or get greedy and deny private arrangements exist, there are rps who refuse contact and nrps who don't bother. There's so many different scenarios I can't imagine how to make the system fair!

But in my case my dp is a nrp and an rp (none of the kids are mine, the step mums) and so I see both sides!

FrontForward · 21/05/2014 18:27

Lots of arguments on here for why

  1. women should go out to work (magic childcare and magic child friendly jobs)
  2. women should fund all child related costs them self (after all they chose to have children so must have planned for this?)
  3. women shouldn't have children from different fathers (presumably the men have no responsibility in this)
  4. women should accept any amount that the father considers 'reasonable'

What about the very simple... Both parents must take responsibility for providing for a child. If you want the mother to work then I suggest you pay 50% of the childcare bill. I'm dam sure this will be far more than 95% of men pay per month

HappyMummyOfOne · 21/05/2014 18:29

So its neglectful not to pay for your childs shelter, clothes and food if you are a NRP not paying maintainance but not neglect of you are the PWC not working so paying nothing either Hmm

Thousands of women work and use childcare. If on a low wage the state even pay most of it as its seen as beneficial. There is no excuse to not work and provide for a child/children you chose to have. Nobody is forced to become a parent.

AmberLeaf · 21/05/2014 18:37

happymummyofone has a benefit bashing agenda, so bear that in mind when deciphering her posts

YoureBeingASillyBilly · 21/05/2014 18:39

Yes agenda, was going to respond but have seen exactly the same line from her at least twice before. She doesnt get it and doesnt want to so no point responding.

fedupbutfine · 21/05/2014 18:40

yes, there is every 'excuse' not to work because the figures don't add up. No one should have to pay to go to work - but if I worked at minimum wage and paid an average rent for this area, I would be worse off working than I would be on benefits. More money through my bank account every month but far bigger outgoings. Why is that hard for you to understand?

HappyMummyOfOne · 21/05/2014 18:41

Quite wrong there Amber but dont let it stop you Hmm. We should have a welfare state to protect our elderly, sick and disabled if they cannot do any form of work. Its what it was set up to do. I dont think it should pay as somebody wont work or wants to work few hours. Thats wrong and I am quite entitled to my opinion as you are yours.

Slating NRP for not paying when the PWC isnt either is very two faced.

fedupbutfine · 21/05/2014 18:44

so only the children of a working PWC deserve the support of their NRP?

AmberLeaf · 21/05/2014 18:51

Your posting history proves otherwise happymummyofone.

We should have a welfare state to protect our elderly, sick and disabled if they cannot do any form of work. Its what it was set up to do

The welfare state was based on full employment. If like now and over many years that isn't possible, the welfare state is there so that no one has to live in poverty.

TheGirlFromIpanema · 21/05/2014 18:52

So start a thread about that then happymummy Hmm

We are discussing the changes to the CSA and how it will impact on PWC with non compliant NRPs to deal with.

HappyMummyOfOne · 21/05/2014 18:54

Ok Amber, show me one post where i have said the elderly or disabled ( where no work is possible) dont deserve benefits.

The children deserve financial support from both parents. They fare less well in life if raised on benefits so why so many choose not to work is beyond me knowing the effects it has.

alita7 · 21/05/2014 18:55

what really must be considered and correct me If it's already being considered, is that the rp is paying for there own home and bills too as well as the child's.

Where I live (don't know about anywhere else) it costs a minimum of £550 for a 1 bed flat and a minimum of 750 for a 2 bed. so it costs an extra 200 approx for a rp to house a child or maybe 2 as well as themselves but the nrp does still need to be able to afford a place for themselves to live too! If the rp has a council house then the nrp may be paying more for the smaller place.
obviously the nrp should have to pay but I have heard some people who seem to think that the nrp should pay enough to cover all the living costs! I just think it is important that the nrp can still afford their rent and food!
If dp had been a nrp with no kids and was single he'd of had £500 a month left after maintenance with no eligibility for benefits!

NeedsAsockamnesty · 21/05/2014 18:58

Of course NRP should pay but so should the PWC. The amount of PWC who slate the NRP for not paying when they dont either is outstanding

I am a pwc if I do not make sure my children are appropriately looked after then my children would be removed from my care using the existing neglect and child protection laws exactly the same as any other PWC

AmberLeaf · 21/05/2014 19:05

Ok Amber, show me one post where i have said the elderly or disabled ( where no work is possible) dont deserve benefits

The children deserve financial support from both parents. They fare less well in life if raised on benefits so why so many choose not to work is beyond me knowing the effects it has

I know it is, that is why I won't bother to explain it to you.

AmberLeaf · 21/05/2014 19:07

alita7 that is where the new girlfriends come in handy.

stooshe · 21/05/2014 19:09

The females on here (I cannot bring myself to call them "women") on here throwing shade after women who want maintenance for the children that they didn't create alone, need a box!
Mind you, the amount of shady females who get with reprobates who slag off their kids' mums, get pregnant for somebody who is evidently not father material is mind boggling.
I'm not burning any bras around here, but a message to those females:
Never feel validated when a male slags off an ex who has his children, who he doesn't make an adult to support. It'll be your turn next!

Rant over, back to thread.