What is a fair child support agency?

nuckinfobhead

is a stupid horrible circle for everybody.

a pwc/mother says 'pay for your kids or i wont let you see them'

a nrp/dad says 'let me see my kids or you dont get a penny'

you hear that all the time, granted not in ALL cases, but most i would bet.

i think this is beyond csa to be honest, i think the importance of being a family unit for one, and probably most importantly how to select the correct partner, should be taught from a young age perhaps as part of the education system. BUT then even that is impossible.

we've ALL nadgered it up so somethings wrong. is it us? or is it them? no, its both.

and its certainly not just the children that suffer is it. its all of us.

pd001

Mr_Green_Genes wrote: »

. Access denied, maintenance removed. That would make the vindictive PWCs think twice. Of course, if access is offered and refused, that's a totally different matter.

Totally agree!

Mr_Green_Genes

Soubrette wrote: »

What about the other way round - no maintenance then no access?

I don't see why not. As with the no access, no maintenance, there would have to be some safeguards but, in principle, I'd have no problem with that at all.

Mr_Green_Genes

Soubrette wrote: »

I think it is equal to the same thing too but some people on here are only able to see their own point of view - if that makes sense

Human nature I'm afraid. That's why all my posts are so balanced (:cool: ) - I have been the NRP and the the PWC, on CS1 and CS2. The common factor was that I was shafted by the gestapo all the time, hence why I love them soooooo much.

Soubrette

Mr_Green_Genes wrote: »

Human nature I'm afraid. That's why all my posts are so balanced (:cool: ) - I have been the NRP and the the PWC, on CS1 and CS2. The common factor was that I was shafted by the gestapo all the time, hence why I love them soooooo much.

I do find you fair minded...most of the time

And being human I think that's all we can expect of ourselves and others - what I can't stomach is someone who reads all these real life stories where the ones getting shafted, in the end, are the children yet still continue to think that all PWCs are fleecing money grubbers or that all NRP are f e c k less and irresponsible.

That makes me very sad and reminds me why the CSA doesn't work in it's current incarnation of trusting what people say as the truth. For some people, the only truth they can see is their own.

Sou

V_tricky

Mr_Green_Genes wrote: »

Firstly, I would end the fiction that there is no connection between maintenance and access. SNIP!

Agree totally - Maintenance and contact are inextricably linked - both by PWC's and NRP's.

I know of one situation where PWC threw her toys out of the pram and stopped contact because she wanted full disclosure of NRP's total household income to consider whether NRP was paying enough (he was overpaying, knew he was overpaying and was happy to be overpaying, but did not want the rest of the adults in the house to have to disclose their payslips to PWC! - nb all adults in the household are PAYE, inc NRP).

PWC asked the CSA (who had previously been satisfied that a private agreement had been made) for a review under CSA2. CSA contacted NRP & advised him that unless he could obtain receipts to prove payment, they recommended no payment was made until they had done their calculation. He fully complied with everything they asked, but 3 months on CSA still hadn't even requested payslips from his employer (they wouldn't accept them from him direct).

Cut another few months down the line, an agreement was made again privately, based on 15% of net income (backdated with a lump sum to cover the missed months), less a variation for number of nights child stays with NRP. CSA file was closed (with confirmation from both PWC and CSA).

Contact was sorted out separately by a court in the end and a Consent Order was filed (which agreed to the initial proposal by NRP all those months before the Court was even involved), at great financial and most importantly emotional cost.

NRP & the child can't exactly claim back the time that was missed during the period that PWC refused contact.

The simple way of working out was extremely helpful in giving guidance to PWC and NRP to what they could both expect, but I'm convinced that a big incentive to find an agreement that suited both PWC and NRP re both the contact issue and the maintenance issue was the fact that NRP was not paying maintenance directly to her during that period of time (but putting it in an instant access savings account ready for when an agreement had been reached where upon he paid her a lump sum as I said before).

Although PWC lives in a much bigger house, and has a very nice car (NRP doesn't drive) and goes on luxury holidays every year as well as a family holiday (NRP hasn't been on holiday for 6 years) it doesn't really grate whilst the child still has a great standard of living - her money is hers, his money is his (less agreed maintenance) and there have been fewer arguments in the last 3 years since the agreement was made than the previous 5 years put together.

I've no idea how to deal with arrears as I've had no experience of anyone who is a non-payer, although I know there's lots out there who don't pay, and I can't quite get my head around why you would not want to support your child.

As for all the new powers that CMEC are looking to obtain - how crazy to let any agency have this power without a Court looking at each case?

V_tricky

I just had to log back on to say that in the above situation, NRP was happy to take the CSA's advice and essentially withold maintenance (whilst putting what he thought the CSA calculation would amount to away in a separate account ready for when the CSA did finally pull their finger out and come up with a calculation) ONLY on the basis that he knew already that his child's standard of living wouldn't reduce as PWC is pretty wealthy in her own right. Whether NRP would have still done this, or whether he would have attempted to get signed receipts from PWC if she had been a low or middle earner, I'm not entirely sure.

Regardless of whether the PWC was being vindictive by witholding contact, it would be a very difficult decision for a responsible NRP to withold payment in this way if they thought that it WOULD or could impact directly on their child - even though undoubtedly it would be an extremely effective catalyst to resolve contact disputes.

Finally, while I'm thinking on, in NRP above's Court case at one of the hearings PWC alleged that NRP was the one who had been cancelling contact visits, and that PWC had done her best to facilitate them (which was a crock - I believe she was trying to show the Court that an Order would not be in the best interest of the child).

I'm thinking of some of the things that happened to NRP above, and reversing them for these puposes...

If contact & maintenance were formally linked,
* How would PWC prove that the contact visit had gone ahead if NRP had claimed it hadn't?
* Would there be a situation where NRP's were denying that a contact visit had taken place in order to stop maintenance payments?
*Would NRP have to sign a receipt when they collected/redelivered the child? That sounds a bit flip, but can't see any other way around it.
* How many missed visits would there be before there was a reduction in maintenance? and would this need to be concurrent visits or number of visits over a rolling period?
* What if the PWC always came up with plausible excuses (ie no contact visit due to having trivial sniffles, even if the child attended school that day)?
* Would PWC's who chose to move far away from the family home be penalised for failing to maintain a reasonable contact arrangement (unless the burdon transferred to them to facilitate the contact visit within 20 miles of the original family home for example)?

I think that sounds crazy, but hearing what some (and I do believe this to be a minority and that has to be kept in perspective) NRP's will do to minimize their assessment, and what PWC's will do merely out of spite to prevent regular contact, it makes me truly wonder.

It also still leaves some PWC who would frankly rather live without the maintenance and raise their children on their own without any contact from NRP to deal with, although I imagine that this might be a much smaller figure than the number of PWCs who currently take the money but withold the contact.

Jeez, I think this is possibly my longest post on MSE - thanks to those for bearing with me while I ramble!

Mr_Green_Genes

V_tricky wrote: »

If contact & maintenance were formally linked,
* How would PWC prove that the contact visit had gone ahead if NRP had claimed it hadn't? I guess if this could arise, have both parties sign something.

* Would there be a situation where NRP's were denying that a contact visit had taken place in order to stop maintenance payments? Entirely possible - so see above response.

*Would NRP have to sign a receipt when they collected/redelivered the child? That sounds a bit flip, but can't see any other way around it. Great minds think alike!!

* How many missed visits would there be before there was a reduction in maintenance? and would this need to be concurrent visits or number of visits over a rolling period? You'd need to give both parties a reasonable chance to put it right but we've got to get away from the current "wait 2 years and then the sky falls in" approach.

* What if the PWC always came up with plausible excuses (ie no contact visit due to having trivial sniffles, even if the child attended school that day)? That's called taking the p***. Sanctions should apply.

* Would PWC's who chose to move far away from the family home be penalised for failing to maintain a reasonable contact arrangement (unless the burdon transferred to them to facilitate the contact visit within 20 miles of the original family home for example)? The rules of contact would have to be looked at carefully - in extremis, under the current rules an NRP can apply to the court for a Prohibited Steps Order to prevent a PWC from doing specified things without court approval.

I think that sounds crazy, but hearing what some (and I do believe this to be a minority and that has to be kept in perspective) NRP's will do to minimize their assessment, and what PWC's will do merely out of spite to prevent regular contact, it makes me truly wonder.

It also still leaves some PWC who would frankly rather live without the maintenance and raise their children on their own without any contact from NRP to deal with, although I imagine that this might be a much smaller figure than the number of PWCs who currently take the money but withold the contact.

See comments above. It's sadly not possible to legislate for every potential situation so there will always be some circumstances which fall outside any 'rules' you may set up.