What is a fair child support agency?

Loopy_Girl

pd001 wrote: »

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

You're entitled to your opinion.

pd001

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

You're entitled to your opinion.

We are all entitled to an opinion.
I was merely expressing mine, as you did yours!

Loopy_Girl

Indeed pd..:D

anyways...having read through the posts from the people who do have something worthwhile to read, I do agree with the majority. However, what about if we have a very non compliant NRP (of either sex) or even a non compliant PWC who refuses to 'fess up their income. What then?

pd001

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

Indeed pd..:D

anyways...having read through the posts from the people who do have something worthwhile to read, I do agree with the majority. However, what about if we have a very non compliant NRP (of either sex) or even a non compliant PWC who refuses to 'fess up their income. What then?

It's quite simple.....we pass the case to Mr GG for his considered opinion

Loopy_Girl

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.

Conversely, would a NRP who didn't want access, would the PWC be entitled to claim for more money? Playing devil's advocate here, if the above was implemented then a PWC who wanted access but an NRP that didn't, the PWC could argue that they are being discriminated against by NRP's able to make a claim for reduction for non compliancy of access.

And what if an NRP only asked for access so that the maintenance bill could be reduced and he really didn't have the child(ren)'s best interests at heart and the PWC couldn't prove this but stopped access for the best interest of the child and had their maintenance reduced?

Am just musing aloud here I suppose:cool:

Loopy_Girl

pd001 wrote: »

It's quite simple.....we pass the case to Mr GG for his considered opinion

Oh I don't know. Having just read the filth that he and enemes were posting last night, I'm not sure if I can trust this man......:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

elisebutt65

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..

And I would hope the other way round. I'm a PWC and I have never, ever put any barrioers inplace for my 2 to see their dads. Dad no1 is wonderful - he is a great mate still - pays his £20 via DD every week - it was £40 but he's just had a new baby and he's only on a low wage so I said he could pay me £20 and £5 direct to DS1.
Dad 2 on the other hand is a total ahole - always acts surprised when the monry doesn't hit the account - That's what happens when you cancel the DD - idiot!!! He always manages to forget about the missed weeks as well so I get paid about 40 weeks out of the year! If I could hit him with a missed weekend or 2 he'd soon change his tune!! Mind you - if left to DS2 he wouldn't see him at all but I insist that unitl he's in his teens he has to go in the hopes that the relationship will get better.

Personally I think the ccouples should try and reach an agreable amount and then get court to sign it off.

pd001

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

Oh I don't know. Having just read the filth that he and enemes were posting last night, I'm not sure if I can trust this man......:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

LOL

You know something?........and I think that many on here will agree....they do talk sense (usually)

pd001

elisebutt65 wrote: »

Personally I think the ccouples should try and reach an agreable amount and then get court to sign it off.

Not a bad idea eh Mr GG?

Zara33

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

Oh I don't know. Having just read the filth that he and enemes were posting last night, I'm not sure if I can trust this man......:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

:eek: Linky :eek: i don't think i've ever read any filth for Mr GG.