My feed
Premium

Please
or
to access all these features

Find financial and money saving discussions including debt and pension chat on our Money forum.

Money matters

Did you know that our Government is now lifting children out of poverty by making other children homeless

162 replies

Twinklemegan · 08/08/2007 21:13

I just want people to know about this as it is so so shocking.

For the past few months the Government has been ordering the CSA to take out court orders against absent parents who are complying with existing agreements. This occurs where arrears cannot be paid back in two years. There is no mention in the enforcement guidance of ensuring that any other children do not lose their home or suffer other severe hardship as a result. The Government will try to recover arrears through the courts even when they are outside the legal time limit and has powers to force an absent parent to sell their home.

Even the CSA does not agree with this!

OP posts:
verysweatybetty · 09/08/2007 20:49

I have sympathy for all the men who didnt want kids and there partner got pregnant on purpose and now there forever having to have empty pockets becouse they have to fork out for the child when the mother should be as she knew what she was doing the night she pulled her knickers off. I feel that all mothers and fathers should equally support there children but i dont htink its fair when the no carer parent has to sacrifice everything he owns. Either scrap csa and make it easier for single parents to work or change the benifit system so the government are trying to rip parents off!

verysweatybetty · 09/08/2007 20:50

sorry missed a couple of letters (my bad)

LittleBellatrixLeBoot · 09/08/2007 20:54

LOL at sweatybetty

I have no sympathy whatsoever with anyone over the age of 13 who doesn't understand that fucking may equal baby.

If you don't want to take the chance, either don't fuck or take responsibility for really effective contraception (like sterilisation). Everything else is potentially unreliable.

nightowl · 09/08/2007 20:56

oh come on sweatybetty! i was all for having a reasonable conversation then but...

"I have sympathy for all the men who didnt want kids and there partner got pregnant on purpose and now there forever having to have empty pockets becouse they have to fork out for the child when the mother should be as she knew what she was doing the night she pulled her knickers off."

without wanting to be vulgar...how does a woman get herself pregnant on purpose exactly? takes two to tango.

verysweatybetty · 09/08/2007 21:02

what type of world are you from there are some men out there who trust and love their partners enough to believe them when they say there on contraception, there are some men out there that mess with womens birth control becouse they want kids and there partner dont, im not saying i feel sorry for men i feel sorry for the women that have to go through it too. If you read what i said your understand what i ment

persephonesnape · 09/08/2007 21:13

'but for me, of course my own DS has to come first. ' TM - but thats how us 'first' families feel about our children. the income that is meant to be for my children is lowered by the CSA because my ex chose to continue to have children. I know I can't have any more children, because i can't support them. it doesn't seem to be a problem for the XP.

and i agree with Tatt - what the CSa determines is adequate to provide for a child has very lttle bearing on reality. your ex shouldn't be paying the 'minimum'. And i agree with little bellatrix. my ex now lives in a beautiful house in a lovely area with his new, childless gf. i lost the house we lived in because i couldn't afford it on one wage. i went o the homeless persons unit and was offered a high rise flat miles away form where i live and was told that if i refused it, they wouldn't house me. i eventually got a private let because i work and managed to scrape up a deposit, walking into work for a month and eating beans and toast for a month. seriously.

2nd families don't have it any better or any worse than the families Xps left. plenty of original families have lost their homes, but oh! no one goes on about it. we set our jaws and do what we can to provide for our kids when our ex doesn't.

Twinklemegan · 09/08/2007 22:00

Can any of you people read?! I said that these men have been complying with existing agreements made with the CSA. What I am concerned about is that the CSA can take enforcement proceedings against people who haven't broken any agreements. This would not be legal in any other context.

My DH has been paying maintenance through the CSA for the past 5 years and hasn't missed a single payment, even when he hasn't been able to afford it due to their cock ups. Like I said, I am paying it at the moment.

FGS!!

OP posts:
beansprout · 09/08/2007 22:03

Ah yes, smooth talking TM is back!!!

Twinklemegan · 09/08/2007 22:04

And PSCMUM, on the old system that was exactly how the letters were worded. The CSA itself said the money was for the ex. This is why there is so much bad feeling. That and the fact that the CSA could take as much as it damned well liked, taking into account the wife's income as well as the husband's and as long as it didn't leave the second family below the income support level (without all the benefits that that accrues) it was thought perfectly OK. Ex lives in lap of luxury, second family lives on breadlines. How very fair!

Thankfully they saw sense and the new system is much fairer. But many men are still living with the fallout from the old, extremely unfair and inefficient system. Anyone who has had any dealings with the CSA knows that the assessments used to (still do?) take so damned long that there were already arrears before the NRP was notified about the liability.

OP posts:
Twinklemegan · 09/08/2007 22:06

Beansprout I'm sorry. I just feel very strongly about this and I feel that people are wilfully misunderstanding. Enforcement proceedings against someone who has done everything asked of them are just not on. I'm not saying these men shouldn't pay off the arrears. But don't go from an affordable assessment that is being complied with to suddenly demanding thousands of pounds in one go!

OP posts:
Twinklemegan · 09/08/2007 22:10

I would also like to know why so many of you take such pleasure in kicking people when they're down. The times I have been most upset on MN are when I have been talking issues that I have already been extremely upset about. I note that none of you have commented on the fact that I am paying the maintenance out of my own pocket because DH can't afford to.

OP posts:
Twinklemegan · 09/08/2007 22:19

Since I'm now obviously talking to myself I might as well make one more point. Child support in this country will never work until it is fair to both sides and acts within the law. PWCs frequently complain about the ineffectiveness of the CSA. But they are part of the problem because there is no will to see the system made fairer for the NRPs. Therefore there will never be any trust or goodwill.

OP posts:
expatinscotland · 09/08/2007 22:26

He was a package deal, TM!

People with kids from other relationships always are, that's why some people chose not to go there.

LittleBella · 09/08/2007 22:35

So the child support system is fair now is it?

£2.50 per child per week is fair?

Oh, OK.

Sorry TM, but you seem to believe that the CSA was invented purely to persecute you. Legal proceedings being taken against you, is not quite the same as being won. Just because someone's taking you to court, doesn't mean they'll win.

I appreciate you feel frustrated and angry. But tbf, when you come across as not having the slightest idea of a wider context to your situation, it's difficult to take you seriously. Sorry. I'm sure what you're going through is awful, but you are not listening to any advice. Long long ago, Desiderata gave you some good advice along the lines of stop being a drama queen, they won't win, stop ranting. You've chosen to ignore it and adopt a "poor me" position, while implying that those of us who get a fiver a week for maintenance for our children, are living in the lap of luxury at the expense of all these poor blameless men. It's difficult for anyone reasonable to have much sympathy with that position tbh.

But anyway I hope you sort it out and I'm sure you will. I think you're working yourself up over something that will never happen.

Twinklemegan · 09/08/2007 22:37

Expat I do understand that honestly. It is me that has been encouraging DH all along to comply with the CSA (not that he didn't want to pay maintenance, just that he was terrified of them getting involved again). A private maintenance agreement was offered in the past and rejected.

I started this thread to make a specific point that policy has changed and parents with existing CSA agreements are now being treated like criminals when they have complied with everything asked of them. I really can't understand why this isn't clear and I can't understand why I am unreasonable for believing this to be wrong. There are situations where arrears of £20,000 or more are being demanded within two years under threat of court action. Where is the sense in that?

I am NOT objecting to DH, or any other NRP, paying maintenance. I'm not too keen on paying it myself but that's life and we're getting on with it. I knew full well what I was getting into and FWIW the arrears were built up well before I met DH. I am very sorry that so many of you, who I used to get on with, seem to think I'm somehow complicit in a deliberate avoidance strategy. That couldn't be further from the truth.

I am extremely upset and disappointed by this thread. I am a regular MN and I am really surprised that you were all so quick to think the worst of me.

OP posts:
Twinklemegan · 09/08/2007 22:41

LittleBella - you're right it won't happen to me because DH's ex has asked the CSA to stop the enforcement proceedings. She is happy with the arrangement as it stands.

But this new policy is putting many many families under even more strain than previously. This affects relationships between the NRP and PWC and obviously the children as well.

I repeat, I did not start this thread about me. This situation is becoming more widespread due to changes in guidelines and I wrongly thought that people might like to know.

OP posts:
Tortington · 10/08/2007 01:26

isit in writing? do you have the govt policy? the CSA policy or guidelines?

tatt · 10/08/2007 10:17

TM you are offensive to anyone who disagrees with you so it is impossible to have a sensible discussion about this issue. I think you've made it pretty clear that you married someone with other children and now want your kids to take priority over his first family. Your partner doesn't want to support his kids properly, he only wants to pay what he has to.

Catsmother I have sympathy for APs who willing pay to their children more than they are legally required to do - I have no sympathy for those who know they are going to be legally required to pay more but sit around waiting to be told how little they can get away with.

When men offer private "arrangements" they usually offer even less than the pittance the CSA require they to pay. Hardly surprising women don't accept them.

This man, we are told, " loves " his first family - but not enough to provide even the pittance the CSA rule is appropriate to feed and clothe them. Funny idea of love he has.

Twinklemegan · 10/08/2007 11:47

Custardo - it stems from the new 2007 collection regulations but it is internal guidelines which are being interpreted without any common sense. The information on the internet has (unsurprisingly) not been updated to take account of this. I have looked at the 2007 regulations and I couldn't quite make out why they have caused this perverse result. It's like Localgirl said, PWC want their arrears back more quickly. Fine if they are entitled to them, and fine as long as its affordable. But to demand tens of thousands to be repaid in 2 years under threat of court action is completely unreasonable.

Tatts - you cannot make judgments about a situation you know absolutely nothing about. The private arrangement was offered to make things easier for everyone because the CSA is incapable of dealing with situations where income is variable. I am not giving any more details here as it is none of your business. You know how upset I am about this, I have apologised for saying people were bitches when I was in tears, yet you continue to make accusations that are unfair and untrue.

I truly hope I never have the misfortune to come across you, and some others, again on this site (unless you yourselves would care to apologise to me).

Perhaps the Mumsnet strapline should be rewritten "by parents with care, for parents with care (as long as you're not a second family)".

OP posts:
Twinklemegan · 10/08/2007 11:48

Sorry, I meant Tatt.

OP posts:
expatinscotland · 10/08/2007 11:51

There are loads of second families on here, TM. Tons.

But none who complain constantly about the support their partner/spouses have to pay out to their kids from other relationships.

There are even those who have had to limit the number of children they have because of their partner/spouses commitments to his/her children from other relationships or because he/she doesn't want more children given that there are already those from other relationships.

Things like this happen when you chose someone who has children from another relationship.

But most realise that and accept what goes with it.

There are far, far more people here who have been made homeless and flung into abject poverty after their partner/mate decides to check out of the relationship.

Twinklemegan · 10/08/2007 11:51

Tatt - I have just reread your last paragraph. HOW DARE YOU? If you have read any of my posts properly you will know that the maintenance assessment is not what this thread is about. Get your facts straight before you make such sweeping accusations.

I look forward to your apology.

OP posts:
Twinklemegan · 10/08/2007 11:54

Am I complaining constantly Expat? I have hardly posted on any CSA threads other than to give advice and sympathy to others. I thought I was objecting to enforcement action being taken when my DH has done everything he has been asked.

I think it IS unfair that I can't afford to clothe my DS because I personally have to pay someone else who left DH to remarry her ex and then had 2 more kids. Sorry, but I do.

We'll have to agree to differ on that one.

OP posts:
Twinklemegan · 10/08/2007 11:56

And I might add that I feel desperately sorry for people on the other side of the problem. I really do. The system is crap for many many people. But most of the CSA body count is made up of fathers and that is now probably set to increase again.

OP posts:
expatinscotland · 10/08/2007 11:57

You're not paying HER! You and your husband are paying for the maintenance of his children by her.

And if that were such an issue, why on Earth did you take up with a man who had kids? I mean, for me personally, when I was single and had no kids, taht was too much baggage for me, so I ran a mile from any bloke who had kids, no matter how attractive.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.