Remember we wanted to petition the Govt. re: CSA?

[Lioninthesun]

Looks like MN may be able to help us after all - voices needed on this thread: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/2084705-MNHQ-calling-we-want-to-know-what-would-be-on-your-policy-wishlist

Let's hope we can get the weight of MN behind us to get the system changed!

Harsher punishment for parole violators? Sorry...thinking `Miss Congeniality'.

How about more enforcement of court orders?

If you don't pay CSA then it won't affect you lostdad There is another thread on the changes here if anyone is interested - made discussions of the day! www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/2030066-CSA-reform-single-parents-to-pay-to-use-service-to-be-very-angry

The changes in the rules mean that only people who refuse to work out details between themselves will be charged. Which means 20% for the non resident parent (usually dad) and 4% for the resident (usually mum).

This only applies to people who won't work together.

I've known fathers who don't pay. I've known mothers who refuse to give bank details to fathers and use the CSA as a weapon. I've known fathers who pay the going rate to get a letter from the CSA stating they've been contacted due to non-payment.

How do you feel these changes are unfair? It's not a case of charging parents who work together - it's about the ones who incur costs because they are using the CSA, etc. to punish the ex.

People who refuse to work out details? Who might that be then lostdad?

Where I agree that it is best to come to an agreement together (much better for the children all round), I fear many (male or female) will just flat out refuse to come to an agreement if there's any sign of animosity and relish the fact that the NRP is being charged 20% extra, just satisfy their own needs (even though the NRP is willing to come to some reasonable agreement).

I do agree with the flat rate rising to £7 and even that is still mediocre. But I also think that more substantial penalties need to be brought in for those who refuse to pay anything for their children, despite quite happily going about their daily lives, living quite comfortably without a care in the world or a second thought about helping financially.

lostdad I get £5 a week from an ex who hasn't seen DD since she was 6mo though his own choice and has made the CSA chase around in circles for years while he earns nearly £60k and can afford a good accountant.
Why should I have to pay every time he decides to make it harder? Or should I just let him off the hook because it won't be worth it?

Not sure how you think I am punishing my ex by asking him to contribute to his child's upbringing

jeordie I have no wish to punish ex and he has previously incurred fees for being an idiot and hanging up on CSA/ignoring letters and stopping his Direct Debit If he paid the correct amount as he did for a couple of months before apparently living under minimum wage, perhaps he wouldn't incur such fees as it would all be much more straight forward. As it is he can well afford them because he is conning his daughter out of her money, so there is plenty to go on fees if he wants to play games.

Lion my comment wasn't aimed at you at all. By all means if he's refusing to pay he should be charged a 20% fee and a more substantial penalty given for such disregard for his daughter. In cases like that fair enough. Every person should pay for their child. If they're man enough to create a child then they should be man enough to hold responsibility. It's not about giving money to an ex. It's about providing for a child so they don't go without and suffer. And as I said, the charge from a benefit £5 raising to £7 should happen. Although, that is still a mediocre amount.

However, in many cases it's not always black and white is all I'm saying. You do get the vindictive ex who will unwillingly come to an agreement for the sole purpose that their ex gets the 20% charge.

The changes are pure evil. But I've been campaigning against them for 3yrs and the Tory scum couldn't give the shinest shit about single parents.

Parents who have experienved domestic abuse will lose even more money due to these changes.

I don't believe it's to stop mothers using the service as a weapon like some do. If they have an axe to grind then 4% isn't going to be much to them when they know the fathers being made to pay 20% on top of what he already owes. They'd probably be happy with that.
I think the charge should fall on the person who isn't willing to sort it out amicably. So if one parent is happy to deal with it privately then the other parent is refusing then why should both parents get charged ?
But then I suppose it's still better than when they used to just knock it off your benefits.

Also to add, the PWC shouldn't be charged a £20 fee to open the case when the feckless NRP refuses or can't be found. Fair enough on the fee if one is willing to agree to something and the other not (the one who is unwilling to agree should be charged, not both). But obviously how do prove that you are trying to remain amicable with it and the other person is the difficult one?

There's flaws everywhere and it needs a re-sort. Instead of charges. It should be free to open cases and maintenance sorted. If the NRP then negates on what is expected of them, then substantial penalties should be put in place.

Tbh, new changes to this could also backfire by causing more animosity than is necessary too.

Cross posted with standing

These charges will backfire. XP will raise hell when he's asked to pay extra, he won't scream abuse at the CSA or the Tories. Me and the kids will get it. At best he will damage the car, at worst I'll have the police out again and he will want to see the dc's.

I'd stop my case altogether if I could but he might think I've met someone else and then I'll get abuse for that. The Tories have put me between a rock and a hard place where I will be a target .

Levying the fee on the party who is unwilling to reach an amicable agreement would just provide another tool for an abusive ex to use against their victim though. How do you police it? It would be far too simple for a NRP to say to the CSA "sure, we'll sort it out between us. I'm happy with that" while telling the RP they won't pay a penny coming after a long history of maintenance avoidance. Why on earth should a RP take the risk that nothing will be paid and it will be unenforceable or risk the maintenance being garnished if they want some form of back up for collection so there is at least a chance it will be paid?

My ex would quite happily tell the CSA that he is willing to reach a private agreement. He would demand my bank details so he could pay. He would then not pay a penny and use my bank details to send his wife into the bank and withdraw any money I had in the account. He cleaned out the DC's bank accounts when we left and tried to do the same to mine. Why should I be forced to give someone like that the opportunity to rob me or my children have to pay a penalty if I refuse?

Sounds drastic but could you set up a different account for sole use of CM purposes only NCT? But tbh, if a person is willing to steal from his own children then CMS would be the only way to go for such a waste of space.

With regards to how would you police it? I agree, which is why I say it needs another overhaul. It hasn't been thought through properly and is likely to cause more frosty relationships than not. At the end of the day you can't force 2 people to come to an agreement if one isn't willing.

How exactly does it work if a person is on benefits too? I mean the government say they only have to pay the flat rate of £7 now because of their low income. Do they still get charged the 20%? Same goes for the PWC on benefits. They're already on such a low income but still have to be charged to get something that is rightfully their children's.

Lostdad I'm not particularly surprised by your comments but I would just like to clarify, you say:-

The changes in the rules mean that only people who refuse to work out details between themselves will be charged

It's not a case of charging parents who work together - it's about the ones who incur costs because they are using the CSA, etc. to punish the ex.

There are plenty of RPs who's ex's avoid paying maintenance at any cost. My own situation where my DDs father wants no contact and has also refused to provide financially for her. So I am liable for all child raising costs as well as bringing up my daughter 100% of the time alone and now I would have to pay a fee to enforce my ExH to support our daughter financially.

How does that even make sense? It is not a punishment to expect someone to contribute financially to their own child y'know.

I am dealing with three cases where non resident parents have been unable maintenance because the resident parents have refused to provide bank account details and say I don't want anything to do with you - I have contacted the CSA' and I'm not accepting money off you and you're not seeing them', making a link between contact and maintenance.

Please note I'm not making a judgement on whether it is more mums or dads to blame - it's inevitable that in the lone parent section of Mumsnet it's going to perceived to be more a case of non-paying fathers; in the same way at the FNF meetings I attend it's going to be the other way round.

It's important to realise this.

But the bottom line is - follow the money: The Government do whatever saves and/or makes them the most cash.

Likewise I have seen people on here say they would not want ex having bank account details as they can be traced and ex was violent. There is usually a reason behind RP not wanting to deal direct with NRP, whether you get that information from your client or not. Many individuals on both sides may make out they are the victim and actually are the abuser. Usually it is somewhere down the middle. Trouble happens when neither side is thinking that the child is the one suffering when they become difficult.

Contact centres can always be used for contact with children and NRP nearly always wins rights to contact if they pursue it.

Paying for your child is a separate issue and it is illegal not to.

`NRP nearly always wins rights to contact if they pursue it.'

I'm guessing you've got that from government statistics concerning court cases. It's worth remembering that contact' includes Being allowed to send one Christmas card a year'. And yes...I've seen that ordered too.

Lostdad you know as well as I do that it isn't hugely common to have that kind of contact ordered without good reason.

That's not to say it doesn't on occasion happen but it's nowhere near as high as physical contact being ordered between a child and an abuser, that is fact.

I can only see I will lose my pathetic £5 a week from Ex. I have no idea where he lives and due to previous abuse will not be restarting any kind of contact.

If I am going to be charged for them to collect this pittance what is the point?

It pisses me off more that he won't have to pay anything rather than the pathetic amount he pays. I also know he is still alive while the money comes through

EasyTigeress without proper analysis neither you nor I can say anything without certainty.

Courts do not track the outcomes of their decisions. This includes CAFCASS. Even when there are statistics it shows an incomplete story.

My personal and professional experience of the Family Courts doesn't give me much reassurance either.

Sorry....with certainty.

Starlight I am in the same boat. Not sure if I will be carried over to the new system automatically or not yet but either way it will result in ex thinking I personally have done something to affront him when he hears from them.

I know my ex is still in the country because of it payments. I would assume he had gone abroad if it stopped. I have however managed to move, so he can't turn up unannounced and make demands any more, which used to cause me sleepless nights and anxiety.

Not sure why this thread has turned into a contact argument for some. It is surely in everyone's interests to get this new maintenance system to work fairly.