Mum jailed for three months after refusing to let ex see their daughter

DUTR

kelloggs36 wrote: »

They wouldn't be paying twice would they? They need to still have the liability whilst in jail so that they don't get any time off for their choice to ignore their children. It merely means that they have a liability which they must pay all the time - no ducking or diving will change that. Only genuine changes in circumstances such as change of job (not to avoid paying), redundancy and such circumstances would be allowed. If they don't pay for say, this year and go to jail next year, next year would still build up arrears - not get a period of grace whilst in prison. That's all I'm saying - it doesn't double up in any way.

What I mean is , the PWC is not working and the NRP is, the benefits paid to the PWC is made up from the working force's tax deductions. Somehow though I cannot see someone who is earning 30-40k /yr coming out of prison and landing a similar paid job, if this liability is present , there is less incentive to find a job afterwards. Also frankly I think the CS value should be halved across the board for those who the PWC denies access for any reason whatsoever. In the meantime some pwc's get a host of help with housing council tax etc etc which also renders some not wanting to work more than 16hrs /week

hamstercheeks_2

i think you are exempt from paying CSA if you are in prison

bit extreme tho:D

kelloggs36

What about the PWC who don't get benefits??? Many don't you know! I also pay my taxes towards benefits, but for a parent of a child who works, they should of course pay extra - their taxes and towards their own children. If they refuse, then they should of course be made to, and if they end up in prison, I don't believe that they should have their liability ceased - afterall it was their choice to get into that situation wasn't it?

hamstercheeks_2

What happens if a non-resident parent is sent to prison and then pays what they owe?
[FONT=JNNGL K+ Helvetica Neue,Helvetica Neue][FONT=JNNGL K+ Helvetica Neue,Helvetica Neue]If they pay the full amount they owe, they will be released straight away.
If they pay only part of the amount they owe, the prison sentence can be reduced.
However, we can continue to take other action to recover this debt.
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=JNNGP P+ Helvetica Neue,Helvetica Neue][FONT=JNNGP P+ Helvetica Neue,Helvetica Neue]If the non-resident parent builds up new debt (by not paying maintenance again), we can go back to the court and they can be disqualified from driving or sent to prison for each new debt.
[/FONT][/FONT]

AsknAnswer

marksoton wrote: »

Yes, but any such claims should be substantiated.

In order for supervised contact to happen, claims HAVE to be substantiated. No-one can just "ask" for supervised contact and get it on a whim, and even for people who really need it in place, resource can be a serious issue.

Substantiated in what manner? Proven in court?

I can see your point if it is a case of not the child, but one parent alledging abuse took place. If the allegation came from the child, different ball game in my opinion, unless of course it could be demonstrated that one parent had been brainwashing the child.

Whether or not violence or abuse has been proven, if the child is clearly fearful of the parent, "proof" should not come into it. Not every offender is prosecuted and not every offender is found guilty. For example, a person being prosecuted in court has the result of a "not proven" or "not guilty" verdict; does not mean that the accused person didn't do it; just that there wasn't enough evidence to convince either way.

Anyone who forces contact upon a child whom clearly does not want it and where the fear of the child can be seen, should be questioning their own morals.

marksoton

AsknAnswer wrote: »

In order for supervised contact to happen, claims HAVE to be substantiated. No-one can just "ask" for supervised contact and get it on a whim, and even for people who really need it in place, resource can be a serious issue.

Substantiated in what manner? Proven in court?

I can see your point if it is a case of not the child, but one parent alledging abuse took place. If the allegation came from the child, different ball game in my opinion, unless of course it could be demonstrated that one parent had been brainwashing the child.

Whether or not violence or abuse has been proven, if the child is clearly fearful of the parent, "proof" should not come into it. Not every offender is prosecuted and not every offender is found guilty. For example, a person being prosecuted in court has the result of a "not proven" or "not guilty" verdict; does not mean that the accused person didn't do it; just that there wasn't enough evidence to convince either way.

Anyone who forces contact upon a child whom clearly does not want it and where the fear of the child can be seen, should be questioning their own morals.

That is the point of contact centers. They will soon pick up if a child is distressed. It is also why CAFCASS exist. I am not saying someone needs to be convicted at all. Simply that a spurious claim should never be enough for a parent to be excluded from a child's life.

Zara33

Thankfully this is exactly why child support and contact are two seperate issues. The CSA deal with the money side and the law deal with the legal side.

kelloggs36

hamstercheeks wrote: »

What happens if a non-resident parent is sent to prison and then pays what they owe?
[FONT=JNNGL K+ Helvetica Neue,Helvetica Neue][FONT=JNNGL K+ Helvetica Neue,Helvetica Neue]If they pay the full amount they owe, they will be released straight away.
If they pay only part of the amount they owe, the prison sentence can be reduced.
However, we can continue to take other action to recover this debt.
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=JNNGP P+ Helvetica Neue,Helvetica Neue][FONT=JNNGP P+ Helvetica Neue,Helvetica Neue]If the non-resident parent builds up new debt (by not paying maintenance again), we can go back to the court and they can be disqualified from driving or sent to prison for each new debt.
[/FONT][/FONT]

I am fully aware of that, but WHILST IN PRISON the NRP does not build up arrears as they are exempt. This is wrong and should be amended to give even less incentive to avoid paying.

DUTR

kelloggs36 wrote: »

I am fully aware of that, but WHILST IN PRISON the NRP does not build up arrears as they are exempt. This is wrong and should be amended to give even less incentive to avoid paying.

Thankfully, the idea has not been implemented, CSA 1 was bad enough and any system that discourages fully abled persons seeking and holding a job, I am not in favour of :A

kelloggs36

I am all in favour of a system which discourages NRPs from walking off and leaving their children behind because their new lives mean that their children are an inconvenience to them now. Throw the book at them.