Child Maintenance (CSA) questions (merged)

kelloggs36

Nobody's bashing men! We are just bashing those parents (of both sexes) who REFUSE to pay and to acknowledge their responsibilities. I don't agree that there are any who are forced to pay too much - there is a limit and whilst it is unfair that there are 2 CSA systems running at the moment, this is under plans of reform as the first system was recognised as being unfair to BOTH parents not just PWCs. Children cost a lot of money and unfortunately, the person not living with them has to pay something to the other person in relation to what they earn. In most cases their lives which they have now have come AFTER they have split and so they must factor their children into their financial futures, not just complain that they can't afford to pay. With the new system, it is pretty simple to do - expect to pay the % according to the number of children they have and they have the rest to live on. They already get a reduction if they meet somebody else who has children, or if they have more children of their own.

djdido2

Yes this was pointed out by myself in the other thread for Women!! Any parent with care needs help regardless of sex. This thread was not started to bash men, it was here to bash the father of my children who will not pay anything for them and chooses not see them.

kelloggs36

People just equate NRPs as being men. Unfortunately most ARE men, but of course there are female NRPs who are just as bad in some cases.

thesaint

Originally quoted by hobo28
<snip>Finally, can we stop the whole men bashing. For every man not paying story, we can find a man being forced to pay too much. Women also can be irresponsible parents too. Sorry but it just annoys me when ppl bash all men when there's many decent blokes out there who just want to do their best.

Thank-you for this balance. Can I say as one of the male population that it is extremely frustrating posting anything on threads like this.
Usually our comments are ignored and then repeated by a woman a few posts down the line and thanked 3 times by others, you sit their thinking 'I said that ages ago'.
The other thing that happens reguarly is you are wrongly attributed to some quote or inference and no one defends the unfair attack, it's either others agree or do not want to 'side' with the enemy.

The net result is hardly any men post their comments, which is a shame because I am lead to believe that approximately half of all parents are men.

hobo28

kelloggs36 wrote:

I don't agree that there are any who are forced to pay too much

I know what you are saying but that view really depends upon who you are. In my case, I'm sure my ex would disagree with me over what the fair amount is regardless of what the CSA said. My partner's ex obviously thinks that £0.00 over 4 years is about right! I disagree!

System

To be honest I think he is willing to agree to the 26% only if he can go to the CSA afterwards. SIL has offered him what others have said is "standard" access of 1 evening per week and 2 nights every other weekend so actually he should be paying 20% minus 1/7. However he is determined to fight for further access as follows:

Week 1 - Friday afternoon from school to Sunday evening or Monday morning to school.

Week 2 - Wednesday after school to Saturday morning after breakfast.

I support him in this because he has confirmed with his employer that he can have flexible working hours and he is perfectly capable of washing their clothes and doing their homeworks plus it still has SIL as PWC and gives them both a full weekend with the kids. Obviously if he manages to get this access his liability for maintenance will be less.

Brother discovered her affair last July and is finding it increasing difficult to stay in the marital home. He doesn't want to leave the children but he needs to move on.

Plus house prices in N Ireland have rocketed by a whopping 36% in the last year (catching up with the rest of the UK) and on a net pay of £1100 he needs all the money he can to be able to buy a property for him and the kids when they stay over.

So basically he just wants to know if he agrees a figure through the solicitors is it binding.

Prudent

Hobo, I do understand what you are saying. I do in general tend to let things go if it is causing a lot of stress or will damage a relationship. I am a people person, I prefer people to the money that I might be able to get out of them. However your situation is different in that 1) you are viewing it second hand. You don't have that emotional involvement in a child that only the parent has. They have been let down by the only other person who should love their child as much as they do. I feel more angry about my ex's failure to show unselfish parental love for his child than the non payment of money. 2) there are two of you. You have each other for support. And importantly there is someone else there for the child. There is no-one else there for my child.

I recognise these are responses of the emotions, but when our children are involved so are our emotions. It is a deep seated desire to protect our children.

I am not blaming men. The best parent I know is a man. Most men are good and caring parents. I am a teacher, I meet a lot of parents.

Sadly the majority of non paying parents are men. That is simply a fact. There are non paying female nrps, but less of them. In time, as more dads have children living with them, this balance will change. There will always be parents, male and female, who are too irresponsible too support their children.

kelloggs36

Prudent wrote:

Hobo,

I am not blaming men. The best parent I know is a man. Most men are good and caring parents. I am a teacher, I meet a lot of parents.

Sadly the majority of non paying parents are men. That is simply a fact. There are non paying female nrps, but less of them. In time, as more dads have children living with them, this balance will change. There will always be parents, male and female, who are too irresponsible too support their children.

Which is what we have been trying to say all along, but people ignore this and just home in on the fact that we are complaining about them! It is a FACT that of those who are NRPs the MAJORITY are MEN. We can't change that fact. It is also a FACT that of ALL THOSE WHO REFUSE TO PAY the MAJORITY are men. We have never said that all men refuse to pay, not once. NRPs are parents of BOTH SEXES.

kelloggs36

He can't agree a figure for child maintenance through a solicitor - in order for it to be legally binding, it has to be through the CSA.

thesaint

Pam17,
I admire your brother, but with regards to contact(Is it still called access in Northern Ireland?) if the courts are like here, he will have next to no chance of getting what is in essence a 'joint residence order'.
His wife could be an adulterous, drug taking drunk and will still be favoured.

He may be better to try and get two nights per week and maybe an extra night or two once a month. It may be better if he got a day in the week as one of his days, so that he can take his children to school which is nice for the children.

As you suggest, it would be better to agree to the 26% informally and get the contact up and running, the two aren't supposed to be related, but some people use one to give some leverage with the other.