Child Maintenance (CSA) questions (merged)

Dora_the_Explorer_5

CSA a shambles, WTC a shambles, Pension TC a shambles, pensioners get 75p a week increase. Thank you very much Lord Protector Brown !

urban_spirit

The CSA as it stands will go - of sorts - but unless MP's put new legislation in place then whoever takes it on is still bound by current law that is such a mess.

There are rumours that private debt collection agencies will take over part of the administration - but as nothing concrete has been released, just a rumour.

IF you want to know whats gonna happen then SPEAK TO YOUR MP as they are the ones who are in Parliament discussing and making the changes right now. The staff usually get to find out after its been on the news.

And Nelly, I have to disagree with you - and I think its the first time! Staff who work there dont just care about having a job, a lot of them (and I agree not all) try to administer the mess of a law as best as possible.

ALL the Government Departments are in meltdown due to Government doing stupid things like cutting staff back waaay to much to cope with the workload, and investing huge amounts of cash in to eg computer sytems that dont work/private consultants that charge incredible fees.

Firefly

I just pray for some fairness within the new system.

My son is not supported by the taxpayer, he is supported by me; a full time working taxpaying mum. However, his "father" (I use the term loosely, he doesn't use it at all) does and has for the past 7 years, done nothing to support his son.

Ex went to Dubai where he can happily avoid the court order for him to pay. :mad: He hasn't been seen for 7yrs.

The only person who misses out is my son and the CSA are totally ineffective as they say there is nothing they can do.

If my son should be supported by both parties (as every child should), one of them is living it up in UAE they why shouldn't the maintenance payment that the court have decreed should be paid, be reclaimed somehow in the future and paid to my son now?

Prudent

Firefly , I think you have raised a question that needs to be asked. When are the parents who have footed the whole bill of bringing up their children going to be compensated?

My situtaion is slightly better than yours, but I still feel angry that not even a head teacher (as my ex is), paid by society to protect the welfare of children is required by the govt to take care of the welfare of his own child.

I begrudge my child nothing. I work full time in a very demanding job to support her. However I would like to see some fairness and her father be made accountable for her support also.

What particularly frustrates me is that it is the tax payer, not the non resident parent who pays compensation when the csa fails to assess and enforce child support.

Firefly

Thank you Prudent. I agree that people like me tend to fall down between the cracks in the pavement as I am not on benefit any longer - couldn't afford that option - but the court have decreed that I should be paid £200 per month. That is a sum that would make a considerable different to the quality of my sons life.

However, while my son doesn't get a penny, ex is living a very nice life thank-you in another country. I don't believe for a minute that he will stay there for the whole of his life and he will one day be a tax-payer in this country or at very least accept his pension, there should be a system that can reclaim what he should have paid. I may feel differently if he was living a frugal life but that is not the case.

The point made by Prudent about even those could be considered "respectable members of society" not doing what is right, just goes to show that there is a system that is failing.

Gorgeous_George

The problems are "Where does the money come from now?" and "How would it be repaid in the future?". I think that absent parents who live abroad (and outside the EU) will continue to avoid paying should they wish. Perhaps the answer lies in some kind of insurance policy or contract (like a pre-nup) that parents-to-be sign up to.

FWIW, I believe a 20 year old absent parent (AP), who gets caught out through a casual relationship, should not be expected to pay the same as an AP from a failed marriage or long term relationship. Yes, they should pay something but 15% of their net income is/was too much.

I also believe that a parent at fault (in the case of divorce) should be compelled to pay a larger %age than a parent not at fault. Adultery should be a criminal offence. A loving AP would pay much more than the maintenance order anyway.

The taxpayer needs to stop paying people to have kids. It's only the economics of the madhouse that says we need to breed at ever increasing rates to pay for old people. That's just a form of pyramid selling and is destined to failure.

There needs to be a formula based on the length of the relationship, number of children, reason for separation, new relationships, time spent by children with the AP. Once a number id found, it should be paid regardless of the AP's income and not based on a %age. Failure to pay should result in a change to tax allowances, rates, benefits and possibly steralisation (oops, a bit controversial maybe).

There must be an answer.



GG

urban_spirit

A child costs the same whether youve known the mother for 2 days or 2 years.

urban_spirit

Firefly wrote:

Thank you Prudent. I agree that people like me tend to fall down between the cracks in the pavement as I am not on benefit any longer - couldn't afford that option - but the court have decreed that I should be paid £200 per month. That is a sum that would make a considerable different to the quality of my sons life.

However, while my son doesn't get a penny, ex is living a very nice life thank-you in another country. I don't believe for a minute that he will stay there for the whole of his life and he will one day be a tax-payer in this country or at very least accept his pension, there should be a system that can reclaim what he should have paid. I may feel differently if he was living a frugal life but that is not the case.

The point made by Prudent about even those could be considered "respectable members of society" not doing what is right, just goes to show that there is a system that is failing.

Firefly, do you know that people who pay tax to our Inland Revenue can still fall under legislation here even if they work in another country.

Lady_S

Gorgeous_George wrote:

FWIW, I believe a 20 year old absent parent (AP), who gets caught out through a casual relationship, should not be expected to pay the same as an AP from a failed marriage or long term relationship. Yes, they should pay something but 15% of their net income is/was too much.

I think it is always a difficult situation where the child is from a one night stand, but there are always condoms. Okay they break, but they can't be accounted for all of the unwanted children.

If people can't be responsible they shouldn't have sex.

Gorgeous_George wrote:

Gorgeous_George wrote:

I also believe that a parent at fault (in the case of divorce) should be compelled to pay a larger %age than a parent not at fault. Adultery should be a criminal offence. A loving AP would pay much more than the maintenance order anyway.

My Oh's ex divorced him on the basis of adultery. But, he didn't meet me until he had been separated for more than 6 months. At the moment my OH pays more than we can reasonably afford to the CSA, and it leaves us in a very difficult situation. However, he does it willingly and not through an attachment of earnings.

The one thing I find awful is that the only reason she went to the CSA in the first place is because she prevented him having contact with the children,and she will continue to stop contact as and when she feels like it, but still manages to cash in. Whilst I know that children cost the same amount to bring up if you are seeing them or not it seems really unfair that he is stopped seeing them when he wants to, and she has him over a barrel as we cannot afford court action because we pay the CSA.

System

As someone who worked briefly for the CSA I can say that self employed and job hopping non resident parents were the most difficult/frustrating to get payments from. Job hoppers just move every time you try to apply a Deduction from Earnings Order.

I personally think that those parents who avoid paying for their offspring should have a deduction applied to their tax code and an administration fee charged for the cost of having to deal with this extra work. If they can't afford it then that's tough they should have co-operated in the first place.

With job hoppers the CSA had to contact the Inland Revenue each time and the Revenue could not supply new employment details until a new employer contacted them to advise of their new employee and then you needed so many payslips to do a reassessment and that caused numerous delays and the build up of yet more arrears which inevitably never got collected because the NRP moved job yet again. If there was already a deduction in the NRP's tax code then they would not find it as easy to avoid their responsibilities.

With the Self employed the Inland Revenue could just add their arrears to their tax bill and the Revenue are far more organised/enthusiastic with regard to taking legal action against non payers.