your views?

blimey40

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7931122.stm

Hear more about this story on the Jonathan Maitland show on BBC Radio 5 Live on Sunday 8 March at 1900 GMT, or download the free podcast.

A CSA spokesman says

A spokesman for the agency said it had made: "Good progress since 2006 in increasing the amount of maintenance debt recovered annually. In doing so it has reserved the right to take a fresh look at many cases, some of which may not have received full attention in the past. "When making any decisions on debt recovery, however, the CSA will always consider the welfare of any child involved, the needs of the non-resident parent and any second family, and any representations of hardship that enforcement action might cause."

joanneg_2

What a load of b*****s!!!

I can't really think of anything constructive to say. The majority of posts on this site alone contradict this statement.

kelloggs36

You might argue that the NRP new children have had full consideration up until now as they haven't had to pay anything, whilst the PWC children have had to suffer.

joanneg_2

The statement just sounds to me as though the CSA believe they are fair and consider all sides which having read alot of posts here and on other sites from both the PWC and the NRP side does not seem to be strictly true.

blimey40

kelloggs

Do you think the system is flawed in anyway?

Mr_Green_Genes

kelloggs36 wrote: »

You might argue that the NRP new children have had full consideration up until now as they haven't had to pay anything, whilst the PWC children have had to suffer.

I wasn't aware that it was the children who paid. Is this a new policy direction?

You appear to be suggesting that the "NRP new children" should be made to suffer as retribution for the sins of their parents. No sensible, rational person could possibly argue that 2 wrongs DO make a right.

kelloggs36

no I'm saying that there should be no reduction for step children, and the fact that they have not paid thus far suggests more lenience in the past than was necessary, thus high arrears due. Had they paid at the time, the arrears wouldn't be there. This is totally separate from when the CSA are responsible for the arrears, but PWC children have had to go without whilst the NRP gets pandered to (in my experience -0 not all will have had this) by letting them off and not chasing them.

overthehills

I think alot has to do with the greedyness and resentments of some PWC.

overthehills

kelloggs36 wrote: »

no I'm saying that there should be no reduction for step children, .

So what you are saying is, because my hubs ex walked out on their marriage and took his child, withdrew contact and changed the childs name, my children, my hubs step children, shouldn't have a reduction in what hubbs pays? So, as a new family suffering the aftermath, we are financially unable to move on with his life while his ex gets on with hers? Perhaps fathers with children need to remain single for the term their children are supported because they can't afford to support a new family?

Mr_Green_Genes

overthehills wrote: »

So what you are saying is, because my hubs ex walked out on their marriage and took his child, withdrew contact and changed the childs name, my children, my hubs step children, shouldn't have a reduction in what hubbs pays? So, as a new family suffering the aftermath, we are financially unable to move on with his life while his ex gets on with hers? Perhaps fathers with children need to remain single for the term their children are supported because they can't afford to support a new family?

She might not think she's saying it, but in fact she is saying exactly that. Which is a shame because it diminishes her, and she is generally pretty sound.

Sorry K, but as far as I'm concerned, you are totally wrong over this.

Soubrette

overthehills wrote: »

So what you are saying is, because my hubs ex walked out on their marriage and took his child, withdrew contact and changed the childs name, my children, my hubs step children, shouldn't have a reduction in what hubbs pays? So, as a new family suffering the aftermath, we are financially unable to move on with his life while his ex gets on with hers? Perhaps fathers with children need to remain single for the term their children are supported because they can't afford to support a new family?

Shouldn't his step children be the financial responsibility of their dad?

And a PWC never gets to "get on" with their life as if the child has never been born, why should the NRP?

Sou