CSA are rubbish! Sorry if wrong forum.

[KareninsGirl]

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?!

This is how I'd do it:

HMRC, DWP and CSA/CMEC should all work with an integrated database, so that pulling up one person on the database can instantly reveal their earnings, benefits and taxation and calculate CSA payments automatically.

A typical cost of raising a child should be calculated in the same way that benefit rates are currently based on "the law says you need x amount to live on."

In cases where the parents are cohabiting the state can top up or not depending on the household income. I

In cases where the parents are no longer together, each parent should be held liable for 50% of the costs.

The 50/50 costs ratio can be adjusted depending on other factors, such as how often each parent has the child in their care.

The state should pay the other non-resident parent's contribution and recoup those costs from the non-resident parent depending on their ability to pay, but always with a minimum contribution even for those on benefits, the self-employed, or those with no income of their own whose lifestyles funded by others (these choices should not be an option for those with children to support in the same way that a parent with care cannot choose to abdicate responsibility due to the threat of prosecution for neglect or abandonment). The costs could be discounted for compliant behaviour.

Where the non-resident parent is assessed as capable of paying the full amount of their 50%, their income should be assessed and a percentage of the disposable income above that threshold also given to the child. The costs of any subsequent children (as calculated above) and an individual's basic living costs should be removed from that disposable income but nothing else should be.

I'd also like to see childcare costs factored into matters. Where a resident parent works and relies on childcare and the non-resident parent is able to work without worrying about childcare, I'd like to see the non-resident parent made to contribute to 50% of those childcare costs as much as they are able. This might encourage a few parents to help out more.

It's about time the state stopped picking up the pieces left behind by feckless parents, but they should target those feckless parents. At the moment we have a situation where parents who meet their responsibilities and care for their children are vilified by media for being scroungers claiming tax credits etc when the truth is that if the other parent paid 50% of those child's costs, many of those single parents wouldn't need to claim.

Excellent post by Dahlen. I don't agree with all of it, but it's at least constructive.

I have to say i agree however I would stipulate child care being paid direct to the provider and would ask for the disposable income element to be placed in a bank account for the future benefit of the child aged 18 or to be used if both parents agree on the use therefore encouraging communication regrarding the child and their needs.

I wouldn't have a problem with childcare being paid direct to the provider, who could perhaps invoice each parent for 50% each.

I don't understand why you'd insist on the disposable income element being held in trust though.

While many wealthy parents often hold wealth in trust for their offpsring, not many insist that their children live the same standard of living as those at the bottom of the socio-economic scale. Are you advocating some form of communism? Otherwise it really does appear as though you're advocating people punish their own children in order to make life harder for the X is the X has the temerity to disagree about how money is spent in the interest of the child. If a parent is good enough to care for your child on a primary basis, they are good enough to make day to day decisions regarding that child's care. A parent who doesn't believe that would surely be going to court to get single issue orders or a residency order in their favour because it's tantamount to saying you think your child is being neglected.

Personally, I think a court would throw out anyone who claimed their child would be better off with them because they disagree with how money is spent.

Dahlen, I don't hold that it's necessarily the case that you'd want to punish your child by witholding your wealth - having already provided for a pre-agreed minimum standard. That standard should be sensible and approrpiate, but a legal liability beyond that would seem strange.

Children are NOT entitled to share the wealth of their parents. For most of us, we do share our wealth, and whilst I certainly don't begrudge sharing what I have with my children (they benefit from having their own rooms, sizable gardens, extra curricular activities, etc.) they cannot lay any claim to it as an entitlement. I could just as easily rent a two bedroom house and squeeze us all in, and still meet my obligations to my children as many people - perhaps not through choice - do every day. It sounds perverse, but it's surely right.

A 15% contribution certainly does not represent a claim to a parents wealth. It is a relatively small proportion of a persons income.

Dahlen-

If the NRP could look after the child rather than using childcare should they,under your regime, have first call?

It is though that's only the case if it's disposable income

That said, 15% of a £100,000 salary, although not a huge proportion, would amount to £15k or £288 per week, which on top of child benefit, tax credits, etc..........

In this sense, percentages are somewhat meaningless.

Actually, I should confess, I don't know if the calcualtion is made gross or net, but the premise still holds.

Some people are not entitled to any tax credits at all, in fact a lot of people aren't since the government slashed the threshold.

Why is everyone ignoring the fact that canpay says he pays for a foreign holiday for his son, school trips and puts money into an account for him? I presume he also buys him clothes and gifts the same as any parent would. This seems fair to me. He is contributing to the raising of his child a lot more than a lot of NRPs do. No child needs £850 a month except maybe those in private schools and then the money should be paid directly to the school. High earners having to pay £1000+ a month is ridiculous, especially when presumably they are also covering other costs

I think you're missing the point entirely - can't pay has cheated the system by pretending he gets paid a pittance. All because he feels bitter towards ex...

I'm not condoning cheating the system but I can see why some people would. £850 a month is more than one child needs, it's practically a salary, especially if the NRP is also contributing in other ways. If I was getting that tax free whilst on maternity leave (or at any time)I would certainly be enjoying it.

I do think the minimum payment should be raised, canpay should be paying more than £7 a week (or whatever low amount it was) I just think it should also be capped.

Something tells me he would be fine paying it if his ex did had not found happiness with someone else. Call me cynical... It's already been established that high earners are worked out on a case by case basis anyway. They have to have some way to do it and 15% is not a lot. You have to consider that if you were still living with your child you would be paying more anyway.

Given that the average salary in the UK is £26,500 and the typical salary is more like £21,500, and that only 25% of people earn more than 36,000, all this talk of children receiving £850 a week applies in theory to only a very small number of children. In practice it will be even less. It's something of a red herring, especially as high earners are already taken on a case-by-case basis.

My ex has never paid a penny in 13 years
I gave them everything (name, address, DOB, employer, reg of work van, NI number the lot)
Still after 13 years there is nothing they can do as he can't be found
They are fucking useless (I told them this the last time I called)
They told me that if I didn't call them regularly then my case would be closed
I told them they where fucking useless and to shove it up their arse

I'm also having CSA issues, but not because of there system. But because dd father is a useless waste of time to human life. I plan on making his life very difficult in the near future

I despair at these cases, I really do. As always it's the kids that suffer due to feckless parents. Although the welfare state is part of the problem, a good too many people would be poggered without it. It just doesn't seem right that as a so-called advanced economy/civilisation we can't make better arrangements.

I was discussiing this last night with a pal (as you do) and he said that in some european countries, state support was more generous for married mothers (or those that had been married). I'm not conivinced that would work here or even be desirable but he seemed to think it would have popular support.

I'm sure it would, but it doesn't mean it would be a good idea. The thing with marriage and children is that while a child is less likely to experience his/her parents separating if they are married as opposed to cohabiting, it doesn't follow that it's the relationship itself that results in better outcomes for the child.

All the research in this area that investigates the poor outcomes for children from single parent families show that money is the major factor. When your control for income, the outcomes are no different, and even when you don't the outcomes are still the same if the educational attainment of the primary carer is degree level or higher.

From a psychology approach, most of the damage children experience comes from warring parents, and we all know that staying together doesn't ameliorate any of that. I'd hazard a guess that quite a lot of the one parent families we see today are headed by individuals who grew up in households where the parents stayed together but abuse, neglect and alcoholism were a feature. Those things are more damaging than separation and divorce IMO.

What we really need is a much more direct approach to getting people to think about the quality of their relationships before they have children, and for society to internalise the view that responsibility towards a child does not end at the same time as a relationship and that if you don't want to forego a significant part of your income on your child post split, don't have a child with that person.

Good piece of advice I wish I'd been given before having my own: Never have children with someone you can't see yourself amicably divorced from.

They do backdate.

Believe me, being in the other side of this where they are trying to extract money from you is no picnic either.

They shouldn't have to try and extract money from you. As a biological parent of a child, you have a duty to pay. It's a childs right to be supported, not an option

Well that all depends on whether its your child or not. Just like a poster up thread, sorry I forget the name, my DH has been forced to pay thousands in the past 2 years for a child which, by his ex's own admission, may not be his.

He came home from work one day to find her and 'their' 1 year old gone, and a note saying that she'd been having an affair for 2 years and was leaving with this guy. She also stated that he might be the kid's dad, they were going to live as a family, and not to try to find them. He did, for several years, with no success. Her family and friends refused to tell me, but said to leave them alone as this guy was the child's dad now. It destroyed him. He still regularly breaks down over his missing child and it's terrible to see. Every birthday, every Christmas is hard for him and he thinks and talks about the child all the time.

9 years later, just as we're planning our wedding, the CSA appear and demand £16k within 2 years and threaten him with jail. He explains the position, asks for a DNA test and it is refused. All requests for contact and discussion with her is refused. He still has no idea where she is, so he can do nothing but pay up, which he has done. He continues to pay. We now have a child on the way, and he will continue to pay, even though that will impact on this child.

So now tell me that's fair. If he was proved to be my DH's biological child, he would of course be happy to pay. As it stands, it seems that he is being targeted as an easy win by both this woman, and the CSA. Why wait so long to try to get money out of him? What has changed in her luff ghat she felt that she needed it? It sickens me, and I just wonder, if there are 2 people in this thread alone who have had this happen, how many others are there out there?

What utterly depressing stories.

Dahlen, you're absolutely right (again). What you're saying though (and I don't doubt that your premis is correct is that in order to solve the problem we have to either:

Pay more money to single parents (politically unpopular)
Insist that parents who don't reach a certain academic standard and/or have no means of supporting themselves are prevented from breeding (politically popular - though difficut to enforce.)

Your last two paras are as sound a basis as I could ever come up with.

I think there are more options that that, but they all require political will and a lot of money.

Non-payment, or avoidance, of child support to result in a criminal conviction possibly leading to imprisonment, much as they do in other countries. Obviously each case would have to go to court as there would be extenuating circumstances in some cases, but that's no different than is the case for other criminal offences ATM, and TBH I'd consider financially neglecting your child as a worse offence than shop lifting or speeding. This would probably be quite easy to sell to the public, despite the inevitable backlash from people who claim that many women are falsely claiming paternity/witholding access (some, of course, will be, but they are a statistical minority in comparison to the genuine cases where single parents are literally left holding the baby with no financial support from the other parent).

More PSHE type education in schools and a greater focus on what a baby really means. Anyone remember the experiment in the US where they gave an electronic doll to the children? It had a huge effect on reducing the number of girls whose primary ambition was to have a child. Again, despite the backlash from those who will claim this is a parent's job, not a teacher's, I think this would be sold to the public quite easily, depending on the spin put on it.

Far greater intervention from the likes of the police and social services in cases where parental conflict or poor behaviour form either parent impacts negatively on children. Bad parenting creates huge social damage. This will probably be unpopular and popular in equal measure. Some will feel it's a gross invasion of privacy. I think if we want a better generation, we need to raise them better. Given the stats on child abuse, neglect, and abandonment, I think it's worth it.

Most single parents are actually mid-30-somethings out of a long-term married/cohabiting relationship, but popular opinion presides that they are jobless 17-year olds. Playing to that, I'd like to see a greater focus on education generally. Raising the age to 18 for full time education is a step towards this. It won't achieve anything though until we get rid of the idea that only academic qualifications are worth having (FWIW most of my peers who got a trade are significantly out-earning me with my 1st class degree and MA). Let's start pushing youngsters - particularly female ones - into vocations, rather than open-ended academic qualifications that don't mean much unless you are prepared to aggressively pursue a career, probably move away, etc etc - all those things that young women in deprived areas who traditionally choose to have children as a type of 'career' - will shy away from.

I could say more but I'm probably boring everyone now.

I am a very lucky single parent. I am in the 1% who own their own home. I still fell foul of a co-parent who abdicated his responsibilities. I lived with him for 6 years before we had our children. I never thought him capable of treating me so badly, let alone our very much planned and saved-up-for DC. Despite all those best laid plans, I still found myself at the mercy of the state when it all went wrong and he refused to pay (self-employed so on a hiding to nothing with the CSA despite holidays and cars). I had a full-time job but with two children to support, a house to find and full-time childcare to pay for, I could not have done it without state assistance towards my childcare costs. As it was I regularly did not eat for the first two years.

Despite all that, and despite hardly bothering to see them (the last time was over 6 months ago), he still has the legal right to override my choice of school for the DC, my religious preferences for them, to prevent me from taking them to see family abroad for an extended period - he still has full parental responsibilities (interpreted in his eyes as rights).

Until people like my X face the very real threat of prison for abandoning (and yes I choose that word deliberately) their children in the same way as I would have done had I just left them at home on their own and walked out, nothing will change. THat's the biggest thing that needs to change.

Rational and reasoned debate are essential. Having hovered on these boards for some time you see some of the less savoury aspects of human nature. For many most there is no happy ever after. The problems are often so complex that the advice given is of little use. Here though, Mumsnet could use the real life experience (which is actually quite broad) to make a meaningful contribution to government policy.

None of us know what's around the corner, and although I remain convinced that a loving and stable marriage is the best basis on which to raise children, I'm long enough in the tooth to understand that for many, that isn't a reality. What is clear is that the current system does a dis-service to all that come into contact with it - particularly children.

Lastly, if I had my time again.........I'd definitely get a trade.