Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Relationships

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you need help urgently or expert advice, please see our domestic violence webguide and/or relationships webguide. Many Mumsnetters experiencing domestic abuse have found this thread helpful: Listen up, everybody

CSA are rubbish! Sorry if wrong forum.

184 replies

KareninsGirl · 23/10/2013 14:01

Aaarrrrggghhhhh!!!

Seven years it's taken them to review my ex's wages. SEVEN YEARS! And they still haven't done it, despite fortnightly contact.

I want to scream, cry, shout...I'm at my wit's end. Will they backdate?!

OP posts:
elizadofuckall · 21/01/2014 11:48

This is a sad thread and shows how ineffective the CSA (or whatever it is now called) is.

Your argument about paying the original amount isn't really feasible. What would happen if your income dropped? Would you still have to pay the same original amount even though you couldn't pay it?

Contrarian78 · 21/01/2014 11:50

One thing this thread demonstrates is how unfit for purpose this system is. I'd defnitely advocate a collar and cap on payments though. the collar would be alot higher than £5 per fortnight

Canpaywontpay · 21/01/2014 11:50

I am happy to pay 15% of what i earned when married and have done even when not working and am happy to continue paying this as stated. A revenge CSA claim solves nothing and merely antagonises people.

lottieandmia · 21/01/2014 11:52

What do you mean 'when I was married'

Do you think your son is not your son any more because you are no longer married?

You should pay 15% of whatever you earn. Your child is entitled to that. That is totally fair.

lottieandmia · 21/01/2014 11:53

The CSA has nothing to do with revenge. It is there because it is very easy for men to walk away from their financial responsibilities when they are not the parent with care.

Canpaywontpay · 21/01/2014 11:54

I would pay the original amount if my income dropped yes, as this is my commitment not to disadvantage my son to tune of the income i earned when we were married, if i could not pay as stated i would expect to be debted for it with interest calculated against this and to pay it at some time in my life even if it is taken as a lump sum from my pension.

Contrarian78 · 21/01/2014 11:55

Actually, is it toally fair? Say his earning increase to £4k per week. The contribution towards child maintenace would then be more than the UK average salary. There's an argument to say if you've got it, you should pay it, but it would make some sort of cap a sensible proposition.

lottieandmia · 21/01/2014 11:56

Cantpaywontpay - I cannot make any sense of your posts. The law says the non resident parent pays 15% of what they earn and that is completely fair IMO. It sounds to me like you have rewritten history in your mind because you don't like having to pay up.

lottieandmia · 21/01/2014 11:57

No there should not be a cap. If a parent is wealthy then their child should benefit from that in the same way they would if their parents were still married.

Canpaywontpay · 21/01/2014 11:58

I mean the income i earned when married. I am not stating my son is no longer my son. 2 weeks after i apply for the access my divorce granted me to be reinstated i get a CSA demand. I as i say am still paying for the debt incurred whislt married whilst my ex is debt free so whilst my income is now substantial this is not taken into account and for me to build a stable future for my son it is better my income pays off these debts than goes to allow his mum to stop working. I am still happy to pay what we agreed in our dicorce papers based on my income at the time.

elizadofuckall · 21/01/2014 11:58

Even if it was taken with interest at a later date, that doesn't pay for your child in the meantime.

I don't have the answer, i can just see the pitfalls in your argument.

Contrarian78 · 21/01/2014 11:59

I couldn't agree more, but it can become an issue with blended families. The op has a responsibility to his child, not to anyone elses. In that respect, I have a degree of sympathy with him.

lottieandmia · 21/01/2014 12:00

Oh come off it can't pay. Who are you kidding? Yourself most of all I reckon.

elizadofuckall · 21/01/2014 12:00

I really think that your argument would come across better if you stopped with the whole 'mum stop working' stuff.

Contrarian78 · 21/01/2014 12:01

Eliza - A fixed amount paid by the state and recovered via a tax code would be the simplest soultion.

Canpaywontpay · 21/01/2014 12:03

An to be fair Contrarian78 your not far off the mark there I would be paying £850 per month tax free to allow my ex to stay at home. A child does not need £850 per month and if a cap was in force based on a reasonable assesment taking into account holidays school trips clothes and food and all other things that would be fairer and I would happily pay that but my son benefits from my improved position with me.

Canpaywontpay · 21/01/2014 12:05

She works now and when married i was happy for her to care for our son and she did very well for 4 years before returning to work. I agreed wholeheartedly with her doing this inspite of the financial consequences but I do not agree with my income going to pay for my ex to stay off work now to bring up someone elses child it's that simple.

elizadofuckall · 21/01/2014 12:05

contrarian I think that this is a great idea, not convinced that OP would agree.

lottieandmia · 21/01/2014 12:08

People will find endless justifications for why they should not pay for their children. Even when they see those children every week.

This happened with my children's father. He agreed an amount to pay in child maintenance when we separated. One day he just stopped paying, apparently because he thought he was paying too much. When the CSA caught up with him, he ignored them until they put a DEO in place.

In the end they calculated that he should pay more than he did initially. So he shot himself in the foot as I would have been happy with what he was originally paying.

In comes down to the point that some people resent have to pay money to a partner that they no longer love and miss the point that it's for their child.

elizadofuckall · 21/01/2014 12:08

Its not that simple though. You wouldnt be paying for her to stay home looking after someone elses child. You would be paying a % of your wage for your son.

Canpaywontpay · 21/01/2014 12:09

An i would agree with a tax code amendment coz what you don't see you don't miss but that would have been the way since our divorce. It's the CSA and having something imposed via rules that do not take into account the many different factors each person brings to the table.

Canpaywontpay · 21/01/2014 12:09

An i would agree with a tax code amendment coz what you don't see you don't miss but that would have been the way since our divorce. It's the CSA and having something imposed via rules that do not take into account the many different factors each person brings to the table.

happybubblebrain · 21/01/2014 12:10

OP - The CSA are not on your side, nor your child's side.

They are a waste of time and emotions.
Unfortunately we do not have a fair system, not by a long shot, and children are the victims.

Owllady · 21/01/2014 12:12

The csa seems to create more problems than it solves. They are law to themselves :(

randomAXEofkindness · 21/01/2014 12:33

It isn't always the case that the mother is disadvantaged financially during the marriage either. Dh and exw were together 5 years. Dh worked, paid the mortgage, all of the bills, childcare etc. Exw never worked and went to university for 4 years. Dh's shift finished at midday, but Exw stayed at university/with friends until after dss bedtime, so dh was the main carer. Dh paid for a childminder in the mornings.

When they divorced, the house was sold and everything divided. Exw student debts were paid off, as was her car, and she was given 60% of what remained, and the contents of the house, because she 'had to support dss'. She walked into a professional well paid role on the back of her degree. With no debts and loads of cash in the bank (for her wedding to om). OM had a house, so no worries there.

DH bought a dilapidated house in a bad area with the small portion he received. His job was poorly paid, it had been enough before, but now the house prices had shot up and he was struggling with the larger mortgage. He had to do all of the pick ups/drop/offs - she was much too busy with her important better paid job. He ended up looking after dss more than she did, but she would never admit it. He felt trapped in his dead end job having to work within school hours. She was earning twice as much as him, her oh was earning 3/4 times as much, so dss was left with an affluent family on one side and a poor family on the other. Once we didn't have heating/hot water for 5 months because we couldn't afford to fix the boiler, dss cost us as much/more (because of travel) as he cost exw for necessities, but dh has always been expected to pay exw csa. When he stopped he was vilified. People always give a vague reason, like 'he's supposed to support his child!'. How is he not supporting his child? I would absolutely love to know precisely what people think he should be paying for.

Sorry for hijacking your thread op!