Child Maintenance (CSA) questions (merged)

LameDuck

PAM17 - It was approx 16k over the 18 months that included the divorce and barrister fees - my ex kept delaying things ended up having 3 CAFCASS reports - she got a delay of 6 months after the second report - she was pregnant with other bloke and it was stressful for her!!! because of the delay she then asked the judge if she could have another report. The childrens wishes are taken into account from the age of 10 but they will ask them even under 10 and make a judgement call as to how well they understand what's going on. By the time of the 3rd report 2 of mine were under 10 and there wishes along with the eldest were considered. I used a very good website call Famillies need Fathers (not to be confused with Fathers for Justice) Although the site is geared up for not having custody I used it to find out what was likely to happen and took it from there.

loftus

kelloggs36 wrote:

In this case the anomoly is entirely to the benefit of the NRP who may also be getting extra maintenance in from his partner's ex to pay for the children for whom he has an allowance for

Not if the NRP is living alone and struggling to maintain a home for their children to spend time in when with him/her and pays the same amount regardless of the situation the PWC is in, his/her and the childrens need and their respective financial positions.

Anyway in the situation you describe it can all be one big circle.

NRP gets reduction for children of new relationship therefore pays less to PWC ===> New partner of PWC gets reduction in maintenance payable to their children because of new relationship etc etc

And none of this does anything to sort out the dead-beat NRP who will pay nothing or as little as possible regardless of their position or the PWC who uses access as a weapon.

kelloggs36

I agree - the CSA needs to concentrate on the dead-beat dads, like my own ex, who refuses to pay a single penny. I'm glad to see that changes are afoot in respect of this but I also fear that they will let go of the very cases where the CSA need to be involved the most.

loftus

I agree. It's the cases that need the most work which are the ones where the need is greatest but the easy targets must be tempting when you have targets of your own to meet.
And how do you tackle people who would rather throw in their job than pay what is due for the upkeep of their children?
I wish you all the best Kelloggs - its lucky your kids have you.

kelloggs36

Thanks! I assume that they will continue to apply the same rules for those who pack in their jobs as they do now - they leave the assessment as it was rather than reduce it, and take the enforcement action that they have to for Self-employed people - liability orders, bailiffs, county court judgements, third party debt orders, charging orders, orders for sale (yipee, they are actually doing these now!, removal of driving licenses, and finally imprisonment. when the new regs come in with the new agency, I will be interested to know what OTHER action they will be taking!

I would also assume that they will be taking complete shared care into consideration whereby no maintenance can be applied for in those cases - it makes sense, doesn't it?

master99

lol bitter women come togeather and discuss how they can get more money out of there x partner and you ask why he so angry wake up. haa haaaaaa. i for one will be ducking and diving. CSA takes to much money.

lebly

What about your children!!

This is the heartless response and attutude that makes the struggling care of the children so angry.

This attitude also gives the men etc that do pay a bad name! wake up to your responsibilities and think of the children not your pocket!

loftus

master99 wrote:

lol bitter women come togeather and discuss how they can get more money out of there x partner and you ask why he so angry wake up. haa haaaaaa. i for one will be ducking and diving. CSA takes to much money.

Pathetic.

There are wrongs on all sides of the equation. Some women pursue inequitable divorce settlements, some men think that walking away froma marriage means walking away from any and all responsibilities.
The one thing not in doubt is that the really innocent victims in all of this are the children who are stuck in the middle of warring parents.

MrsTinks

Now don't shoot me down here but as a girl this is my take on things...
I have no children and this all happened in Denmark so please bear that in mind ok?
My dad now has 3 children. I am the eldest - from wife number 2(he divorced before remarrying in case anyone thinks he's got a hareem lol) , my half sister was marriage number 3 and my half brother is from his current marriage (number 5). He even adopted my halfsisters older half sister when he married her mum. He has paid everything he's been asked to by the Danish CSA (and more) for all of us (apart from his son - he's still married to his mum lol!!!) and whilst my mother has always been on good terms with my dad (too good... I never got away with ANYTHING -they always talked to eachother so I couldn't say mum said etc etc) but wife number 3 when they divorced refused him access to my sister who was about 12 months old...
Without fail every year he would apply for access or visitation rights and without fail it would be denied. She refused to let him know where my sister was but he still duely paid every penny ordered by the CSA. When my sister was 15 she got in contact with us... Her mother spent years telling her how nasty and evil my father was (lying hag) and when my sister got older she realised all her mother had told her was a lie... We still keep contact but having now had to bail out her several times (she's coming up to 20 soon) and dealing with her social workers when she was younger was a huge drain on both my dad and I. Finacially and emotionally.
My father has always supported his children, natural and adopted - even when he was denied the right to see them... So not all "absent" dads are bad... the mothers in my view (which I recognise is VERY biased) can be just as selfish and nasty as some of the fathers described here already...
I'm not saying that no blokes are bad fathers! Not at all! But mothers can be just as bad...

hobo28

prudent wrote:

Sadly the majority of non paying parents are men. That is simply a fact. There are non paying female nrps, but less of them.

Absolutely agree with that fact. But ask yourself why? Are the majority of these men simply irresponsible? Maybe. But how much of this is because men stand virtually no chance of primary residence and so by default have to pay maintenance. How many of these men fought to see their child but found that the law was unfairly against them?

Personally I suspect if this were a country where men automatically got custody, how many women would suddenly not pay each month? I reckon the numbers would be the same and so its not all down to the fact men are irresponsible.