CSA advice - why 'screw' the good Dad's??

hamstercheeks_2

enemes wrote: »

Cool ... so, those Hamster Cheeks of yours ... what end? Upside down or not? LOL

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

cheeky (pardon the pun!)..... but very good for this time of night!

well.... both obviously

other end is more elephant cheeks actually :eek:

enemes

hamstercheeks wrote: »

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
well.... both obviously

other end is more elephant cheeks actually :eek:

Obviously! .... or what?

...and what end is 'the other end'?

I'm getting dizzy now ... won yzzid gnitteg m'I

Mr_Green_Genes

enemes wrote: »

I know ... you are so right. But... and a wee 'BUT' at that, ... it was my little'un who said to me that he didn't want to go back 'home to mum' ( when he was THREE!). In many ways, I have been fighting his battles for him since, so although he didn't 'ask for this,' unfortunately he is 'involved' despite the fact that I have tried so much to create a sense of transparency for them both over the years. Ain't easy ... then again marriage isn't either, I suppose!

See, just when you think you've made a good post, someone comes along and gently points out an improvement. Cool!!!!! That's what life should be - learn and build on other things.

Thank you for that.

Maybe the gestapo narks on here will understand that eventually.

Maybe I shouldn't hold my breath.

Maybe I should just say goodnight.

Goodnight.

xxx

enemes

Mr_Green_Genes wrote: »

Maybe I shouldn't hold my breath.

Maybe I should just say goodnight.

Goodnight.

xxx

Nah! Mr GG .. never hold your breath. For you, every Good Night follows a Good Day, and for every Good Day follows a Good Night! We all need every breath we can get, to make sure that we get from one end of the pool to the other!

It's people like you, who have the lung to do for others who can't do for themselves ... they rely on your breath. "Breathe, Man ... Breathe"

marksoton

cte1111 wrote: »

TBH £29 per week doesn't sound like a lot of money. It's great that your OH is an involved father, but part of that is paying a share of the child's needs.

When times are hard, we may all struggle to make ends meet, but failing to provide for our children should not be an option.

It is a lot when the father is having the child on something approaching shared care. As is the case here.

Donedoingdebt

hamstercheeks wrote: »

I would suggest if he wants to reduce payments thru the CSA have his daughter 4 nights a week - that would reduce it significantly.

Wouldn't that make him the PWC or is that what you meant & I'm being a little slow?

bambi1980_2

Hi,

Thanks for all your replies, looks like the title caused a little controversy!
Well the latest is the CSA are ringing his ex and if she agrees that he has his child 3 days a week as he does then the arrears will be reduced. He thinks it's unlikely that she will agree but if she thinks she is owed money then she'll take it all the way. Apparently the arrears is made up of money he owed when he should have been paying CSA at an higher rate plus money he apparently owes the Secretary of State! It's something to do with because of her being on benefits!
Just to those that said about the child being the most important one, I totally agree and she always is.

Thanks

Mr_Green_Genes

bambi1980 wrote: »

Thanks for all your replies, looks like the title caused a little controversy!

Don't know what you mean ...

Well the latest is the CSA are ringing his ex and if she agrees that he has his child 3 days a week as he does then the arrears will be reduced. He thinks it's unlikely that she will agree but if she thinks she is owed money then she'll take it all the way. Apparently the arrears is made up of money he owed when he should have been paying CSA at an higher rate plus money he apparently owes the Secretary of State! It's something to do with because of her being on benefits!

You have to cast your mind back to 1988 when the CSA was invented. The then government (Mrs. Thatcher in charge, a guy called Tony Newton as SoS for Social Security) decided that the level of benefits to single parent families could be cut if they could get more money from "absent parents".

And so it came to pass that the CSA was born, a child of the union between Mrs Thatcher and Tony Newton.

Time passed.

There was some disagreements in the Thatcher/Newton relationship. Eventually, the CSA was subject to a Court Order and was fostered out to a new union, that between Mr Blair and Harriet Harman. As a result of this fostering, some surgery was carried out on the offspring and, lo and behold, a new, improved, whiter than white child was recreated from the DNA of the old one.

Except of course that Mr Blair and Harriet Harman had managed what almost everyone had hitherto thought impossible. The new child was worse than the old one!!!!!

... cont. for 94 pages

Sorry, I got carried away there but the point is that the CSA has absolutely nothing to do with supporting children and never has. It has everything to do with (utterly feebly) attempting to reduce the welfare bill. Thus they knock off most of the maintenance from a non-working PWC's benefits. If the NRP doesn't pay, those arrears are classed as being "owed to the Secretary of State". It (probably) doesn't mean s/he trousers it mind you.

Just to those that said about the child being the most important one, I totally agree and she always is.

And quite right too :A . Mine were (well they still are but they're now ancient - 22 & 20!).