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!

[NeedsAsockamnesty]

Needs it can go up to 40% or at least it could a few months ago!!!

That would only be accrued arrears,those things that happen when you don't pay

[Lioninthesun]

In case I am still being unclear - he has had kids with 2 other women and is now with you.

I do feel we are deviating from the OP...

[EllenMumsnet]

alita7 requested for her post to be edited to remove some identifying RL information - to get it 100% right, we've withdrawn the post entirely and she should be back shortly to repost. G'night all.

[SpecialAgentFreyPie]

I think the second wives who support absent preants who get up to these tricks are a disgrace to the sisterhood.

Totally agree Effective

[AmberLeaf]

[quoted post removed by MNHQ]

On the whole, when a seperated couple.parents of a child/children have an arrangement that works, they tend not to be the ones who seek help from the CSA.

[quoted post removed by MNHQ]

Extra money? it isn't extra money!

What is unfair, is that you were using your money when your partner should have been using his

Im sure you will disagree alita, but you are a prime example of a new[as opposed to the exes] partner believing everything their DP tells them and not seeing that maybe, your DP has been economical with the facts.

Just be very careful about having children with your DP.

[alita7]

I don't know exactly what's gone on in the past but I know what she says and does now... which is pretty much what he complains about having happened in the past.

And it felt like extra money when they were going off on holiday without the kids...

[AmberLeaf]

No reason why she shouldn't go on holiday without her children. Or should she only 'expect' child maintenance if she is on the breadline?

I think you have the best of intentions, but you are IMO naive.

[43percentburnt]

I could not be with a man who didn't pay maintenance and crawl over hot coals to see his children. I (especially in my job) see too many men who happily admit to not paying maintenance and too many new girlfriend/wives who excuse it. It amazes me how anyone could be involved with them.

Fundamentally our culture needs to change. Children are seen as a woman's issue and men use excuses not to pay. The holidays abroad, she has a nice car, she works full time etc.

The excuses about DNA and paternity, I was of the understanding that the Csa paid for the test and only billed you IF you were the father. If a man truly believes he isn't then surely get the Csa to do the test and they are free from the nasty evil ex forever and they don't have to pay Csa or for the test. Surely a win win for the man.

I have previously asked such a man how much he has in the children's savings account for the kids when they are adults, presumably he would save every penny of the maintenance to ensure the correct people received it and to stop the evil ex spending it on holidays to the Maldives and ferraris, unsurprisingly he hadn't saved a penny. Surely £200 a month saved for several years would be a wonderful help to his son or daughter at uni or buying their first house, and greatly appreciated.

I could not respect a partner who didn't pay/whined about paying for his children. I certainly would not respect my 'father' if he hadn't paid or saved maintenance.

[AskBasil]

Ooh she's having a holiday, how dare she. He shouldn't have to support his children if their mother can sometimes do something enjoyable that costs money, right?

[AskBasil]

Women accept men who are financially abusive to their children 43percent, because they don't recognise it as financial abuse and we are socialised to see the world from men's POV and to see other women as threats and as lesser beings than men.

Hence the resentment at other women having the temerity to afford holidays, shoes etc., if men fulfill the very basic parental duty of actually paying a bit of maintenance for their children. Which most of them don't. (3/5 of parents with care receive no maintenance, only 5% are widows so it's not because the fathers of their children are dead. It's because financial abuse by NRP's is normal.)

[fedupbutfine]

oh yes...heard that a thousand times....she works, she has nice nails, she went on holiday twice last year....why should he have to pay for his children? Even better when they say...she works, she has nice nails, her new partner earns a fortune and they have two new cars on the driveway so why should we have less just to support his children?

And if it's not that, it's 'she should get off her fat arse and get a job'.


arrrggghhhh!

[AskBasil]

Yep. Focus on her nails, so we don't have to focus on his parenting fail.

[doziedoozie]

Surely better sharing of the DCs so that there is not always a RP and the other. If it was 50/50 there would be less need for payments.

Can a shared set up be insisted on, ie the one parent refuse to have them almost full time so NRP does more?

Most mothers probably feel it is best for the DCs to be with them but until that changes we won't know. The EOW arrangements prob encourage Disneydad behavior.

[AskBasil]

50/50 would work very well if parents live near each other and it could be arranged without disruption to the children. And it would be much more common if more men did 50% of parenting before the split, as family courts tend to simply re-confirm what current arrangements are, so that disruption to children is kept to a minimum.

If people want 50 50 care and control, they need to organise their parenting that way before they split up (and actually they'd probably be less likely to split up if they did that) because it's very unfair on children to completely change their caring arrangements in the wake of a relationship break-down.

Apart from which, lots of men would not do 50% of the care - they'd just dump it on their mothers or their new girlfriends. So much for equal parenting.

[messandmayhem]

dooziedoozie the point is that vulnerable women and children are going to be put at risk of further abuse because of these changes. These arent cases where 50/50 is every going to happen, because frankly the NRP poses a risk to the safety of his children. Everyone I have spoken to since I left my husband has said that his behaviour indicates that he poses a medium risk to my kids if he is left alone with them. Thats his fault. He chose to abuse us.

[basgetti]

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.

Alita once you have your baby are you going to provide a breakdown of your expenditure to the mothers of his other children so that they know you aren't 'wasting' money that could go to their DC? What is the difference?

[alita7]

Basgetti that post is someone else's....

[basgetti]

Apologies Alita, I misread it and got it mixed up with the big post where you criticised his ex's spending habits.

[alita7]

My point is that csa should have been looking at our circumstances, not deciding dsd 3 didn't matter and could go hungry because she lives with her dad. While the other kids didn't even have the money spent on them.
How could anyone justify one family being able to afford luxaries when the other was barely scraping by...
I don't care if she has holidays when dp and I can afford to look after dsd.

[alita7]

My point is that csa should have been looking at our circumstances, not deciding dsd 3 didn't matter and could go hungry because she lives with her dad. While the other kids didn't even have the money spent on them.
How could anyone justify one family being able to afford luxaries when the other was barely scraping by...
I don't care if she has holidays when dp and I can afford to look after dsd.

[PoirotsMoustache]

"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."

Exactly. I mean, I don't pay a penny to put a roof over my DS's head. Or for council tax or water or gas or electricity or food or clothing or shoes or uniform or the occasional treat or haircuts or bus fares or toys or books or stationery or bedding or furniture.

Oh, wait....

[basgetti]

They do take circumstances into account. They reduce maintenance payments in correlation with how often the NRP has them overnight, how many resident children the NRP has even if they are not theirs biologically, they can ask for a reduction in maintenance if they have a resident disabled child whilst a RP is not able to get an increase in maintenance for the same reasons. And presumably now that your DP is no longer working they will have assessed those circumstances too and adjusted the maintenance accordingly.

[alita7]

Basgetti what they didn't do was say oh look dp just got dsd 3 and child benefit and tax credits take a while to come through,... A reduced amount while we were waiting would have prevented a problem. I know it's not part of the policy but I think it should be looked at.
The over nights thing only works if the mum is willing to be honest, she told them he doesn't have them at least 52 nights a year, he definitely does, but they told us she said he doesn't... how do you prove it when there's no contact order?

[AskBasil]

ROFL at the childish idea that if someone is a PWC they're not paying for their children.