Government decides to make single parents lives more difficult

[Daddster]

The Government has announced a "name and shame" and other sanctions for absent parents who don't pay their maintenance (see link.

It is just me or are they really trying to make relationships which are already strained beyond breaking point and which already usually have a detrimental effect on the kids much much worse? As usual, the fallout will be on the kid, whom the non-paying parent will resent.

There was a peer on Radio 4 over the past few days quite rightly refusing a Conservative peer's suggestion that access to one's child be made conditional on payment of maintenance (you'd be punishing the wrong person), but this new suggestion is sort of doing the same thing.

you say "As usual, the fallout will be on the kid, whom the non-paying parent will resent".

Call me naive, but I find that v v sad

Here here Speccy! No one asks to be born.

I for one will not be giving my consent, but then again he has 6 kids by other women, so the decision will be taken off my hands.

the white paper actually has a lot more in it than that - they're going to apply the £10 maintenance disregard to all cases, not just ones under the new rules and that figure will rise by 2010. they're also going to base maintenance % on gross income rather than net.

i fully understand threat of violence etc, but there has always been an exception for people who don't want to name their ex partner - that will still apply to benefit based maintenance - and people will not be forced to persue their ex partner through the csa ( what will it be c-mec?) if tehy are on benefits if they have private arrangements.

frankly, I'm fed up with people not supporting their children. give them curfews, take away their passports, whatever. i don't think it will make them pay, but there must be something done to make maintenance avoidance less socially acceptable. ( I do have NO IDEA what that is though..)

from the DWP press statement: -
**
DWP says: The overall aim is to get more money to more children. This involves using powers we have now, like name and shame, and legislating to get tougher powers in the future.

The announcement about naming and shaming was made alongside the Child Maintenance Bill, which is published today. From the end of June, the CSA will start publishing information online about non-resident parents who have failed to pay their child maintenance.

All of those named have been taken to court and found guilty of information offences. The Agency has so far written to approximately 100 resident parents to ask for their permission to publish their former partner?s details.
***

so it looks like resident parents can choose to not publicise that their ex pays them no maintenance.

Why should the state have to subsidise bringing up someone's child because they can't be arsed to pay maintenance?

Don't want to pay for them, then get the snip and don't have them.

I agree w/persephone, I'd like to see deadbeat parents get passports yanked, benefits docked (even a fiver a week to help their child), etc.

Why should the state have to fill the gap in because they can't be big enough to shoulder their share of the costs for children they brought into the world?

surprisingly I find myself 100% in agreement with Expat

goodness, that shut everyone up

i agree with expat, i don't think 'name and shame' will bother the type of parent who can't be bothered to pay- unless they put the names on the telly or something equally improbable! my dd only gets maintenance (83p/week!)because csa takes it directly out of xh's benefits. it bothers me that he doesn't want to get off his arse, get a job and provide a more meaningful, practical level of financial support for his dc (he has 2 others by another woman, and says he refuses to get a job simply because the csa payments will increase to be more than he can manage if he does).

Access conditional on maintenance? Ha! Perhaps payment of maintenance should be conditional on having access to the child?! [before anyone starts on me, I know there are times when this isn't appropriate]

God, if the systems actually worked as they were meant to, my sister would not be simultaneously testifying in a harassment and violence and criminal damage case against her ex, contesting his ridiculous demands for unfettered and unsupervised access to his 3 and 5 yr old children, and holding down a full-time job because a) he pays no maintenance, b) he has around £60000 of hers, forcing her to take out a 100% mortgage on her new house, c) claims legal aid by putting all of his houses in other people's names (usually his stupid and weak sisters), d) works only for cash whilst claiming unemployment benefits galore and e) he claims legal aid thanks to his above (obviously impoverished) situation.

If any legislation can truly tackle monsters like him, then bring it on. Nobody more than me would like to see this git in metaphorical stocks, but I'd say the likelihood is that this proposal will only catch the deadbeats though...

Sorry, I seem to have mentioned the legal aid twice there. It does grate rather...

The deadbeat Duchesse, or more likely the people (like my DH) whose cases have been royally f*cked up by the CSA themselves.

I have absolutely no faith whatsoever in the CSA, Twinkle. The sooner it is disbanded, the better. They are doing what the Immigration service is doing at the moment, to meet clear-up targets: going for "soft" cases. I think it's a shambolic disgrace.

PS: I should say that I'm rather hoping the stress of having to lie to the vast number of government agencies as sister's evil ex is having to do should soon start to take its toll on his health. We can but hope...

I'm also hoping that his criminal case ends up in the press, just as a warning to all the women who fall for his charms in supermarket car parks. I suppose that would be exposure of the kind this initiative is aiming for. I do think it should be reserved for gits like him, rather than people who abide by the rules and thereby unfortunately become soft targets for the idiotic bureaucrats that seem to staff most govt agencies these days.

Glad to hear that Duchesse. CSA threads always get to me because all men seem to be tarred with the same brush, and there are so many men and their new families whose lives have been made impossible by the CSA.

That was to your first post btw. You're so right - they never ever go after the real offenders. Oh no, they go for the people whose assessments are so ridiculously high that they literally can't afford to pay them and keep a roof over their heads.

My ex used to not pay maintenance because a she said what could I do. In ous situation were powerless and he had a continual threat over me in that if I did not act in the way he said then he would not pay.

He then went on to have another child when refusing to support his original child.

I now don't take any money from him by choice but I do think there should be stiff penaltiesfor fathers who don;t support their kids and that the money they pay should not be affected if they choose to have more children.

I think absentee dads should be forced to work if they don;t and that money handed over directly to the mother.

Oh rightho - so my son has to go without because DH chose to get on with his life after his ex went off with another man. Nice!

Incidentally, because the CSA is so crap at making appropriate assessments, I have effectively been paying the maintenance for DH's DD while my DS goes without essentials. Is that fair please?

THis is not going to make me popular but if you can't afford to have childen don;t have them, dp and I have not had any more children and one of the factors in that decision was a lack of money. If you're assessment is wrong or unfair then that is another matter but if the man is paying a fair amount of maintenace and can't afford any more children don;t have them.

If you get together with somone who already has children then you have to understand there are limits or constraints on any new relationship.

Whatever the rights or wrongs it is still his son that he should support.

And exactly why shouldn't a man be able to start over again and be happy with a new family? The woman can - DH's ex had 2 more kids that they can't afford. And a child from a "second" family is just as entitled to have a decent quality of life, or aren't all children created equal?

I really don;t see how this move is making single parents lives more difficult.

Speaking from my experience it would have made my life easier as I was living on the streets with a baby camping out in hostels if i was lucky while my ex refused to pay maintenance, he sued to turn up in his new car and designer suits to pick dd up for his access,

Ia m not singling out men, I am saying parents should not have more children if they can't afford the ones they have got. His ex is just as wrong by the sounds of it.