Another child maintenance thread.....

[Supercherry]

Is it really the case that unless one goes through the CSA, that one is not legally entitled to child maintenance from the non-resident parent?

A court order can set CM when a couple divorce, but after 13 months if either parent applies to the CSA, the CM amount in the court order becomes void and there is no legal channel to have it reinstated, the CSA take over 'jurisdiction' of CM from then on.

The courts will only make an order for child maintenance in a divorce if it forms part of a consent order, i.e. the parents have agreed the financial arrangements. If the parents do not agree the child maintenance arrangements the court will not order maintenance (apart from in a few special cases) and the matter has to be referred to the CSA.

Once the order has been in force for 12 months either parent is entitled to refer the child maintenance to the CSA. The CSA's decision on the level of maintenance to be paid overrides the court order.

If neither parent refers the matter to the CSA the court order remains binding.

If you have never been married, the only way you can force the non-resident parent to pay maintenance is to apply to the CSA.

Thank you. You have confirmed what the CSA told me. I just still find it incredulous.

Surely, the policy needs changing. The resident parent is in such a weak, financial osition. Policy designed by men for men.

I don't understand what you want changed. If you want to force the non-resident parent to pay, the CSA is the mechanism designed to allow you to do this. You can either use it, in which case they will set the maintenance level and collect it for you, or opt out, in which case you can agree whatever you want with the non-resident parent. So you can have child maintenance without using the CSA but, unless you've got a court order, you can't enforce it if the non-resident parent refuses to pay.

The CSA certainly needs improving so that it offers a better service, including better enforcement - it has the powers but seems strangely reluctant to use them at times. But what alternative mechanism would you propose?

If you want to force the non-resident parent pay maintenance, you need some mechanism for tracing them, determining how much they should pay and making sure they cough up. That is the CSA. Resident parents were in a much weaker position financially prior to the CSA.

It is surely better for both sides the RP and the NRP to reach agreed arrangements.

Contact should NEVER be coupled with payment.

It would be better if the CSA had offices which the public could visit. The CSA should not be allowed to conduct business over the phone.

The CSA should not collude with female RP to punish men who are unable to pay.

Getting a man to bear some financial responsibility for his children is nothing to do with punishment and all to do with parental responsibility.

I don't for one minute think that access and maintenance should be couple together either. Entirely seperate issues.

A man who earns should be legally obligated to pay for his offspring. The problem with the CSA for me is that their policy is such that they do not enforce payment until they have managed to contact the NRP. That can leave quite a lengthy period of time where the RP receives nothing from the NRP.

That is unfair- the law/policy needs changing.

I a being 100% reasonable about access with my children's father- after all it's in their best interests.

My ex, however, is being an arsehole with money and there is pretty much fuck all I can do about it. I am waiting for the CSA to contact him.

There is nothing I can do about getting him to help with finances in the interim.

I agree that it is better all round if the RP and NRP can reach an agreement, so I am pleased that RPs on benefits are no longer forced to use the CSA.

Legally contact and maintenance are separate issues. I agree that the two should remain separate (except in as much as having the child regularly overnight may reduce the amount of maintenance to be paid).

I'm not sure about having offices for the public to visit. Mixed views on that one.

And I sincerely hope the CSA does not collude with female RP to punish men who are unable to pay (at least, not intentionally). Maintenance is a percentage of earnings. If there are arrears it can be more difficult, of course. I think the main problem, however, is the CSA's propensity for getting its figures wrong, coupled with the somewhat random nature of its enforcement.

The CSA seems to lose paperwork and letters sent to them.

If "customers" could deliver documentation by hand that may stop letters and documentation getting lost in the CSA postal system.

The problem is though, the RP and NRP can reach an agreement, but if the NRP doesn't pay what he agreed then the RP has no choice but to go to the CSA. There will then be a time delay before they contact the NRP and all this time he is getting off scot free without paying for his children. The NRP has to bear the financial burden alone. The CSA do not chase these arrears.

Please tell me you agree that this is unfair on the RP??

If you were able to give the CSA contact details for the father they are supposed to contact him within 4 weeks of you lodging your application. He is liable for maintenance from that date, even though it will take a few more weeks for the CSA to work out how much he has to pay.

Unless you were to introduce a system where the amounts paid by the father were completely unrelated to his ability to pay, I don't see what else you can do (apart, of course, from making the CSA more efficient).

But believe me, you have my sympathy. I have no time for men who try to avoid paying for their children.

I agree that it is unfair on the RP that, if the NRP stops paying or won't pay the agreed amounts and there is no court order, there will then be a gap until maintenance restarts via the CSA. It might be better if the CSA maintenance started from the date the claim was lodged rather than the date the NRP is told of the claim. I'm not sure why it is like that but I suspect it is to avoid disputes with the NRP claiming maintenance was being paid whilst the RP insists it wasn't - and yes, I know some RPs who would, if given the chance, claim their ex hadn't paid even when he had, in the hope of making him pay twice. Once the NRP has heard from the CSA they know they need to keep proof of any payments they make. Having said that, the gap between you opening the case and the CSA contacting your ex should be 4 weeks at most and is often much less than that - less than 2 weeks in both the cases I've been involved with.

You then, of course, have a further gap of up to 8 weeks while they calculate maintenance. They will collect the arrears to cover that gap but you have to wait. I'm not sure what could be done about that other than shortening the time it takes them to assess people.

A bigger problem in my experience is the NRP who refuses to pay even when the CSA has calculated maintenance. That can lead to years of no payments - hence my comment that enforcement needs to improve.