What is a fair child support agency?

Mr_Green_Genes

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

I think we really need to see a video link of your proposals. With your shirt off.

With a remark like that, I can see why you're called Loopy . Seeing me on video with my shirt off would definitely not be for the faint hearted.

Marksoton - no, I'm not Hugh Hefner, I'm not that old. Anyway, why would I want to be him? What's he got that I could possibly want, apart from girls, money, more girls etc.

Julesmum - that's not nice and under my benign dictatorship, it wouldn't happen. One of the really bad things about the CSA was that they simply overrode court settlements. That was wrong.

Mr_Green_Genes

Merry_Gentry wrote: »

If you don't want to do a public video link, feel free to PM me

Steady on girl. I suggest you have a cold shower and think pure thoughts for a couple of hours. It doesn't work for me but it might for you.

Merry_Gentry

Tease








:rotfl:

Mr_Green_Genes

Merry_Gentry wrote: »

Tease

Treat 'em mean, keep 'em keen. Isn't that what they say??

:eek: :eek: :eek:

enemes

Sensemaya wrote: »

Should child maintenance be handed back to the Courts?

No ... too many lawyers are being paid too much to drag these issues along for their own beneifits. Also, most of the people appointed to make these decisions ( i.e. Judges and Sheriffs) are so far removed from reality that they really aren't in any position to make a sound judgement.

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

Worth a try ... but, if a NRP wants to avoid providing for their child(ren), then they are not going to turn up anyway. Again, this could be a costly venture, and one that lawyers would milk.

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

Ideally, good in theory ... but peoples' circumstances change, and how fluent would this system be? What might be a sound agreement one day, may become unworkable the next, following redundancy, new family commitments etc etc.

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

Do flies smell !!!!!!?

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

In theory, the CSA is meant to be just that ... except, of course, you can't just walk in. More people are involved in this than those who need to see a doctor ... how much would this cost the nation ( or us)?

Shared care issues?

Eventually the courts are going to get fed up with the amount of cases coming through the system, and will by default give everyone 50/50 shared care in the hope that us 'parents' can resolve it ourselves ... as I said earlier, the legislators are so far removed from ..........

BTW ... as for the assertion that Mr GG and I were talking dirty last night - nonesense, just mere pillow talk, and we both kept our shirts on. Sorry to disappoint!

LizzieS_2

Too many issues arise on these boards due to new relationships on both sides (especially under csa1 where both parties can manipulate changes onto the other).

Both parties should be assessed at the outset of separation based upon purely themselves and their children, furthermore incomes should be based on what each is capable of earning. Also childcare does need taking into account there as not all can be claimed back - both parties are hardly going to have an equal career chance when childcare is essential.

New relationships/children from either side should not change anything - it is their child and a known expense so each should factor that into 'moving on' in life.

Mr_Green_Genes

LizzieS wrote: »

Both parties should be assessed at the outset of separation based upon purely themselves and their children, furthermore incomes should be based on what each is capable of earning. Also childcare does need taking into account there as not all can be claimed back - both parties are hardly going to have an equal career chance when childcare is essential.

Not sure what you mean here - particularly with regard to being assessed on what each is capable of earning. What most people are capable of earning will bear very little relationship to what they are actually earning especially at this time of mass redundancies. To continue, are you suggesting that, in addition to 'normal' maintenance, an NRP should also fund the PWC's childcare arrangements? That is very harsh, particularly if there's no control over what child cars is being claimed.

New relationships/children from either side should not change anything - it is their child and a known expense so each should factor that into 'moving on' in life.

Also harsh for the NRP who has been denied the pleasure of bring up the children, particularly in a case of a vindictive PWC who cuts off all contact. You're actually saying that a PWC can move on but an NRP can't.

Finally,

enemes wrote:

BTW ... as for the assertion that Mr GG and I were talking dirty last night - nonesense, just mere pillow talk, and we both kept our shirts on. Sorry to disappoint!

I just want to make it clear that I also had my socks on the whole time.

LizzieS_2

Mr_Green_Genes wrote: »

Not sure what you mean here - particularly with regard to being assessed on what each is capable of earning. What most people are capable of earning will bear very little relationship to what they are actually earning especially at this time of mass redundancies. To continue, are you suggesting that, in addition to 'normal' maintenance, an NRP should also fund the PWC's childcare arrangements? That is very harsh, particularly if there's no control over what child cars is being claimed.

Capable is what the courts themselves use under the childrens act - it is one of the listed considerations. I suggested this as many nrp's complain the pwc is on benefits and therefore not making a contribution themselves directly from earnings - if anything it would set a more balanced contribution from each party and therefore harsher on the pwc who then chooses not to work!

For childcare, each parent should give the other the opportunity to work and share the childcare - in reality that balance is never going to be equal, so it is a direct expense that one party must have to make a fair contribution themselves - equal rights = equal costs.

Also harsh for the NRP who has been denied the pleasure of bring up the children, particularly in a case of a vindictive PWC who cuts off all contact. You're actually saying that a PWC can move on but an NRP can't.

Am I, or are you misreading it? You've already suggested a link between contact and maintenance earlier in the thread, so a pwc cannot be vindictive.

Finally,


I just want to make it clear that I also had my socks on the whole time.

I am suggesting both parties move on and both are given a fair chance to choose a future, but neither one is hindered by later decisions of the other.

Mr_Green_Genes

LizzieS wrote: »

I am suggesting both parties move on and both are given a fair chance to choose a future, but neither one is hindered by later decisions of the other.

You are certainly correct about both parties moving on, but by failing to take account of anything that comes later, you may well be preventing that.

As for " a pwc cannot be vindictive", would that that were true. No legislation in the world will stop people behaving in a despicable manner. If it did, there would be no more rape or murder as they are against the law. All I would seek to do is to minimise the impact of any vindictiveness.

I think that we are in agreement overall, with just some possible variances in how to get to where we think is a good place.

Sensemaya

Thank you to everyone that responded.

Will be back on later to discuss.