CSA Payments and Proof of a Cheating Girlfriend...

Soubrette

MartinL wrote: »

each case should be judged on it's facts. both sides of the argument should be heard, and a conclusion reached. surely that is not too much too ask from the csa.

in my particular case, if a woman cheats 9 months before the baby is born, and the potential father has proof of that fact, then there should be different rules and different outcomes...

i don't know what should happen, maybe she should get a vastly reduced payment. when i was a kid, my mother brought me up on benefits (3 of us in fact) after my father walked out, and i turned out alright (although some on here might argue against that). there was no csa back then, and people just had to survive as best they could. why should it be an different nowadays?

i understand why fathers should be made to pay, under normal circumstances, ie. the mum and dad just don't get on anymore, and they already have a child/children. both parents should accept equal (or as equal as can be) responsibility, both financially and emotionally...

both each case should be judged on its own merits, instead of just tarring everybody with the same brush. ie. you are the named father, therefore you will pay, REGARDLESS of your circumstances...

But you do not have to pay if you are the named father and you can prove this is not the case with a DNA test.

Conversely the CSA is not here to judge on the dubious morals of your ex - even if she was the skankiest skank in the world, slept with 100s of blokes and ended up giving birth to your child - that's not the child's fault and you are liable for its care. Should the child suffer because your girlfriend is an idiot?

Sou

marksoton

MartinL wrote: »

each case should be judged on it's facts. both sides of the argument should be heard, and a conclusion reached. surely that is not too much too ask from the csa.

in my particular case, if a woman cheats 9 months before the baby is born, and the potential father has proof of that fact, then there should be different rules and different outcomes...

But the conclusion can only be reached by finding out who the father is

And the only way to do that is by DNA testing.

Soubrette

MartinL wrote: »

i don't know what should happen, maybe she should get a vastly reduced payment. when i was a kid, my mother brought me up on benefits (3 of us in fact) after my father walked out, and i turned out alright (although some on here might argue against that). there was no csa back then, and people just had to survive as best they could. why should it be an different nowadays?

It's because of Fathers like this that the CSA was born - too many children were being brought up in poverty because (mainly but not always) the Father walked away.

Reduced benefits punish the mum, yes, but they always impact on the child too and that is simply not fair.

Sou

marksoton

MartinL wrote: »

.

i don't know what should happen, maybe she should get a vastly reduced payment. when i was a kid, my mother brought me up on benefits (3 of us in fact) after my father walked out, and i turned out alright (although some on here might argue against that). there was no csa back then, and people just had to survive as best they could. why should it be an different nowadays?

Should we never strive to make things better for our children ?

MartinL_4

marksoton wrote: »

But the conclusion can only be reached by finding out who the father is

And the only way to do that is by DNA testing.

but the outcome is black or white. you are either the father or you are not. you either pay or you don't. the amount is the same - regardless.

the circumstances behind it all are irrelevant, which is a travesty...

looby75

MartinL wrote: »

i don't know what should happen, maybe she should get a vastly reduced payment. when i was a kid, my mother brought me up on benefits (3 of us in fact) after my father walked out, and i turned out alright (although some on here might argue against that). there was no csa back then, and people just had to survive as best they could. why should it be an different nowadays?

i understand why fathers should be made to pay, under normal circumstances, ie. the mum and dad just don't get on anymore, and they already have a child/children. both parents should accept equal (or as equal as can be) responsibility, both financially and emotionally...
.

I don't think anyone on here thinks you are a bad person, your ex obviously hurt you very badly, and it's totally understandable that you are feeling the way you are. What matters now though is how you move forward, especially considering you may very well have a new son any day now.

The CSA in principle was a good idea, unfortunately like so many good ideas it got so tied up in red tape that it ground to a halt for a lot of PWC and messed up the lives of many NRP with it's many mistakes and !!!! ups.

I'm sure that if there had been a CSA back when you were children your mum would have been very grateful for any extra money they managed to get from your dad. His responsibilities to you and your siblings didn't stop just because he left, which is the same for any NRP, why should PWC just have to "manage" while NRP walks away scott free to live a new unburdened life?

Soubrette

MartinL wrote: »

but the outcome is black or white. you are either the father or you are not. you either pay or you don't. the amount is the same - regardless.

the circumstances behind it all are irrelevant, which is a travesty...

Because the outcome is the same - a child and the circumstances behind it all are not the child's fault.

Sou

MartinL_4

Soubrette wrote: »

It's because of Fathers like this that the CSA was born - too many children were being brought up in poverty because (mainly but not always) the Father walked away.

Reduced benefits punish the mum, yes, but they always impact on the child too and that is simply not fair.

Sou

well, if the father is in a better position financially to provide for the child, and he is willing to, then he should have the option to have the child live with him full-time.

the mother, who is not able to provide the best life for that child should be denied custody...

but what are the chances of that happening? slim, i'd say...

mothers seem to be able to have their cake and eat it... and that's not fair.

it seems the csa is anti-father. perhaps thats naive, but that's how it seems to me.

MartinL_4

looby75 wrote: »

The CSA in principle was a good idea, unfortunately like so many good ideas it got so tied up in red tape that it ground to a halt for a lot of PWC and messed up the lives of many NRP with it's many mistakes and !!!! ups.

i have no doubt that it was a good idea, and the intentions were generally good. afterall, a child is in no position to claim the best life he/she can possible have, therefore he/she needs someone else to do it for him/her. but, what grates with me, is the fact that there is only 2 possible outcomes, from hundreds of different possible scenarios...

looby75

MartinL wrote: »

i have no doubt that it was a good idea, and the intentions were generally good. afterall, a child is in no position to claim the best life he/she can possible have, therefore he/she needs someone else to do it for him/her. but, what grates with me, is the fact that there is only 2 possible outcomes, from hundreds of different possible scenarios...

but the fact is either you are the dad or you aren't, nothing else matters. The fact she may have slept with the whole of the UK army won't change the fact that you are or aren't the dad. It really is that back and white. It has to be.