What is a fair child support agency?

Sensemaya

I would be grateful if people would post in this thread their opinion of what a fair child support system should be.

Let's keep this a healthy debate and not a slanging match, please.

We know CS1and 2 do not work and C-Mess will, I predict, join them.

Here are some pointers:

Should child maintenance be handed back to the Courts?

Should there be a separate child support court set up where both the PWC and NRP can discuss a sum where both are happy?

Should the sum agreed be handled through this court once both parties have agreed quickly and efficently?

Should lawyers become involved ( as we know only the lawyers win! )?

Should there be a walk -in centre instead of a court?

Shared care issues?

jacklink

too many issues - and the point being ?

and as for your request of

''Let's keep this a healthy debate and not a slanging match, please.'' you do nothing but slate me for my opinions.

bias situation here

tamsin1982

im a pwc my opinions are -

things should be more like csa1 rather than the set amount in csa2, although more complicated I think its fairer to look at the incomes and outgoings of the nrp, but somehow ensure they havent got themselves a huge mortgage to avoid paying for thier kids.

maybe courts would be the way to go but i think alot of pwc wouldnt bother cos to be fair its alot of stress and hassle and i think id rather struggle than have to see my ex again!

Merry_Gentry

A walk in court

NRP and PWC show their income and expenditure so that 'surplus' can be seen - I think this would make it clearer that often the PWC comes away with less (smaller wage, bigger expense in terms of having to provide 24/7 for the child, even if they stay with the NRP on occasion). Also to take into account that if the child is staying over, the NRP will need to have a place where they can sleep.

Agreed amount - not sure how that would be agreed though

Stamped by the court, with a rise based on cost of living each year maybe? Standing order set up once stamped.

No lawyers

Shared care - well hopefully that would be covered by ensuring the living allowance for the NRP takes into account the child staying over

* Please note, this is all off the top of my head, so don't jump on me please!!

** I have been the NRPP and am now the PWC so have seen both sides - hopefully no bias showing!

Mr_Green_Genes

Firstly, I would end the fiction that there is no connection between maintenance and access. I would put in place a system, not necessarily controlled by the courts but certainly under their ultimate jurisdiction, that set access rights at the same time as maintenance and had a mechanism for penalising any PWC who broke the access rules by withholding some of the maintenance. That way even the most vindictive of PWCs would have to face the fact that his/her actions had negative consequences.

The best arrangement would be for the parents to make a private agreement which would then be lodged with the court, and whilst the court would have little power to change it (other than in extremis), it would be able to act if either party failed to abide by its terms.

Clearly there would have to be a system for those who couldn't reach such an agreement, rather as is proposed for C-MESS. I am a fan of simple systems so I would retain some sort of percentage system for determining the default maintenance. For people in paid employment that could be similar to now. For the self employed, I would bring in a system that levied an automatic assessment in the event that the NRP failed to provide data for the calculation. That would be set at a sufficiently high level to make it in the person's interest to comply.

To tackle the arrears problem, I would put something like the C-MESS proposal in place. Re-assessments would take place once a year, on the anniversary of the claim, unless there was a significant change of circumstance, such as death (of anyone involved), redundancy etc. "Account" statements would be obligatory, at 3 monthly intervals, and once issued, unless they could be shown to seriously inaccurate, would be legally binding to prevent anything like the gestapo's current practice of rewriting history.

The new organisation would lose all powers of prosecution and any dispute would have to be settled in a court, or court-like arena, with full disclosure of all evidence before a decision could be reached.

That's nearly all for now.

I'd refuse point blank to employ anyone who had ever worked for the gestapo, on the grounds that such people would be hopelessly tainted by failure and corruption. Well, I might make an exception for Kelloggs who is a pretty good egg.

Oh and finally, sack EDS, sue them into bankruptcy for the appalling job they've done (and not just for the CSA incidentally), throw away all the computers and replace them with some monkeys with slide rules. They'll be cheaper, more efficient and will, no doubt, be more accurate than the current computer system.

jacklink

in repsonse - a single PWC if takes a job at 16 hours a week will recieve an extra £40 a week on top of wages for a year
so therefor
£40 a week for a year for taking a job (curtisy of DWP)
child tax credits
working tax credits
housing benefit
council tax benefits
family allowance
csa paymants
wages
80% childcare paid for

what better than to be a single parent in this day and age

to be fair a NRP

has his wages of perhaps £200 a week and pays 15 or 20 % csa of wages
full rent to pat
full council tax to pay
no child tax credit
no working tax credit
no benefits
but still has the child(ren) so many days a week and pays extras

any dispute ?

who is better off ?

you decided

Merry_Gentry

Mr_Green_Genes wrote: »

The best arrangement would be for the parents to make a private agreement which would then be lodged with the court, and whilst the court would have little power to change it (other than in extremis), it would be able to act if either party failed to abide by its terms.
.

Absolutely!!! :T

N71

Sensemaya wrote: »

I would be grateful if people would post in this thread their opinion of what a fair child support system should be.

Let's keep this a healthy debate and not a slanging match, please.

We know CS1and 2 do not work and C-Mess will, I predict, join them.

Here are some pointers:

Should child maintenance be handed back to the Courts? Possibly. Would PWC's/NRP's have more respect for the court system?

Should there be a separate child support court set up where both the PWC and NRP can discuss a sum where both are happy? Now that there is no need for benefit claimant PWC's to use the CSA, surely the PWC's and NRP's who are able to agree to a sum will do this themselves anyway.
There would have to be a seperate system for the NRP's who have no interest in paying, who wouldn't agree to go to the child support court - the courts wouldn't stop the job hoppers, self employed with dubious accounts or the ones who disappear off the face of the earth.


Should the sum agreed be handled through this court once both parties have agreed quickly and efficently? Similar to the CSA, if thats what both parties want, yes. If they can do it between themselves - even better.

Should lawyers become involved ( as we know only the lawyers win! )? Not if it can be helped.

Should there be a walk -in centre instead of a court? But the people who would be willing to walk in, are probably the ones who don't need to use the CSA anyway.

Shared care issues?

As Merry_G said, this could be included in the NRP's living expenses.
But if going through the courts, maybe contact and maintenance should somehow be linked. So, if PWC gets awkward on shared care to gain herself an extra 1/7th child maintenance it won't be allowed.
But how can the 'can't be !!!!!d NRP's' be forced to care for there child(ren)?

Other points - in cases where both parents have a child each - they don't pay each other anything.
- the amount agreed by the courts is a set amount for the year - similar to tax credits - to save people going back to court every few weeks with petty disagreements.

I'll think of more.....

Edited to add - Vote Mr GG for the next Secretary of State (or PM) - but only if I can have a job in the new agency.

Loopy_Girl

jacklink wrote: »

you do nothing but slate me for my opinions.

That's because you are an illiterate muppet. Nothing to do with the CSA.

btw...curtisy is spelt courtesy. Lets hope there were no numeracy and basic english tests at your (made up) home carers job.

pd001

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

That's because you are an illiterate muppet. Nothing to do with the CSA.

btw...curtisy is spelt courtesy. Lets hope there were no numeracy and basic english tests at your (made up) home carers job.

A little harsh here methinks..........

pd001

Mr_Green_Genes wrote: »

Firstly, I would end the fiction that there is no connection between maintenance and access. I would put in place a system, not necessarily controlled by the courts but certainly under their ultimate jurisdiction, that set access rights at the same time as maintenance and had a mechanism for penalising any PWC who broke the access rules by withholding some of the maintenance. That way even the most vindictive of PWCs would have to face the fact that his/her actions had negative consequences.

The best arrangement would be for the parents to make a private agreement which would then be lodged with the court, and whilst the court would have little power to change it (other than in extremis), it would be able to act if either party failed to abide by its terms.

Clearly there would have to be a system for those who couldn't reach such an agreement, rather as is proposed for C-MESS. I am a fan of simple systems so I would retain some sort of percentage system for determining the default maintenance. For people in paid employment that could be similar to now. For the self employed, I would bring in a system that levied an automatic assessment in the event that the NRP failed to provide data for the calculation. That would be set at a sufficiently high level to make it in the person's interest to comply.

To tackle the arrears problem, I would put something like the C-MESS proposal in place. Re-assessments would take place once a year, on the anniversary of the claim, unless there was a significant change of circumstance, such as death (of anyone involved), redundancy etc. "Account" statements would be obligatory, at 3 monthly intervals, and once issued, unless they could be shown to seriously inaccurate, would be legally binding to prevent anything like the gestapo's current practice of rewriting history.

The new organisation would lose all powers of prosecution and any dispute would have to be settled in a court, or court-like arena, with full disclosure of all evidence before a decision could be reached.

That's nearly all for now.

I'd refuse point blank to employ anyone who had ever worked for the gestapo, on the grounds that such people would be hopelessly tainted by failure and corruption. Well, I might make an exception for Kelloggs who is a pretty good egg.

Oh and finally, sack EDS, sue them into bankruptcy for the appalling job they've done (and not just for the CSA incidentally), throw away all the computers and replace them with some monkeys with slide rules. They'll be cheaper, more efficient and will, no doubt, be more accurate than the current computer system.

You have my vote Mr GG :beer: