Child Maintenance (CSA) questions (merged)

IvanOpinion

Why is the money not deducted directly from peoples pay packets or benfits cheques .. surely to goodness that would be easy to administer and pass on ... well it should be .. but we are talking about civil servants here

Ivan

pandas66

Kimberley wrote:

So if he emigrated and coming back, surely he'll go back to escape it Hope you get what you and your kids are owed. :beer:

maybe he will Kimberley and then never be able to return! Or be slammed in the prison! oh its a good day! as they say 'what goes around, comes around'Its certainly a step in the right direction for a lot of eraant fathers that choose their life over their childrens.Yeaaaah! from me!

CIS

Its not the civil servants who are the issue , its the MP's who devised the scheme that need looking at , the people at the bootom can only try and work their way through the red tape they are given to work with.

Kimberley

Are there any board guides around???????????????????????? We have 3 CSA threads going around the forum, can we please have them emerged together :mad:

Saucepot

The principle that the absent parents of children ought to be contributing to the cost of raising the child is a fair one. Otherwise the burden falls on the taxpayer.

However the CSA appears to have been a dead loss from the start. Achieving none of it's aims and causing rather than alleviating financial hardship.

I would only hope that by scrapping it, the situation improves ensuring equity for single parents, absent parents and the taxpayer.

JasonLVC

The CSA was about taking the burden off the state and passing it to the parent(s). But I always felt that the CSA was neither a deterent for a runaway parent (as they'd be able to keep them in red-tape for years) or effective, as ultimately, not many people actually got any or near enough money.

Anyway, the government need to establish an 'average cost per week' to maintain a child to a minimum standard (ie, two pairs of shoes per year, three meals a day, etc). This is regardless of the 'style one is accustomed to'. This weekly amount is then divided into two (mum & dad element). Therefore, the member who has left the child has to pay half to maintain that child's running costs until aged 16.

That's probably how it is calculated now, but they confuse it by bringing in ability to pay or wealth. This has been the problem. Like everything else, there will be winners and losers, but at least everyone will get the same treatment and therefore easier to adminster.

Those who are unemployed will still have to pay the 'average agreed cost' of bringing up a child (as if they were still a family unit, being unemployed would not have removed the responsibility to pay for that child). If that leaves them with £1.00 after deductions then so be it, but it will also encourage them to get a job again. If you're well-off then it will not be such a problem but again, at least you are paying to keep the child - which is the whole point of it.

I guess it would actually be cheaper to give legal aid to single parents to persue absent parents through the courts, rather than this pointless layer of red-tape which has achieved very little over the years.

$17mma

I am trying not to take the article too literally as there is not enough information yet.But it seems as if the CSA has woken up and smelt the coffee, they have realised that the are doing an abysmal job at tracing, tracking and getting absent parents to pay and it seems that from the statements in the article are trying to wash their hands of the whole mess that they have helped to create.It almost sounds as if they are trying insinuate that parents no longer need or require their help and are more happy to get on with things themselves.What a load of kak!!!

shykins

as far as i understand it they have always had the power to put in prison, take away passports etc, but having the power and using it is not the same thing.. i was told my ex would be chased to the end for money he owes but here we are 5yrs later and i have had nothing

if a parent does not want to pay they wont, unless the threats are made and used its no point in making them.. my ex is self employed and its just a game to him, he hides what he eans from the taxman, from the CSA etc...

i cant see how any other dept will sort this out as no doubt they will be tied up in the same red tape, the CSA went after the easy targets and ignored the hard ones which are exactly the people who they should of concentrated on

sorry am rambling but i see no light at the end of the tunnel, i await to be proved wrong
x

pandas66

I agree entirely shykins, things may not wholey change, it just puts a smile on my face that for once in the 12 year battle (whats the phrase of winning the war etc) the possability of penalty may be on my side. Maybe the next step is to levy interest of late/non payment. But it'll be small baby steps!evil smilie insert.

nelly_2

The csa couldnt give a flying if the kids get any money all they care about is that they stay in a job.