Should blame be part of the equation

nearlyrich

TotallyBroke wrote: »

It's a weird thing really the whole 15% deduction. Where does that figure come from. I'm a single Mum and can say that I do not put 15% of my wages aside each month for my son. I've just looked at the CSA website and put in the details as if my DS was not living with me. They would want me to pay £47 per week!!!!! I certainly do not spend that on him each week apart unless I factor in childcare costs whic I have to have because I work.
Also why if a child has a rich father should they get more than a child with a poorer father?

When you have your children living with you you usually find that you spend a lot more than 15% of your income on things like housing, lighting, food etc etc, you might spend less on some categories if you had no children to provide for.

And why do children get more if they have a rich father? well that's life isn't it and using a % of income is fairer that a set amount which would be peanuts to some NRP's and a massive sum to others.

In regards to the original question it would be fantastic if the system could get everyone involved doing the best for the children's welfare and apportioning blame would probably not help.

I brought up my two with little support from their absent father, my ex and no help from the courts or the CSA to make him pay, I got through it without making his life hell as I didn't want to sink to his level. I know it's a big deal when you are going through it but they do grow up eventually and you can forget the ex existed;)

Blob

Yes they do grow up and go out into the world, but how many NRPs have second or future relationships distroyed by the actions of the CSA.

My opinion is that the amount shoud be caped in 2 ways;

1. Assesment based on a 40 hour week, therefore everyone knows where they are, and both sides can get on with thier lives.

2. As it is based on IS rates and the Gov recon an aldult can live on those then that is the max that the assesment can be set at.

I accept that this is a very simple view, but in my opinion this would remove the CSA as a weapon for PWC to use, and at the same time remove some of the fighting that is the norm at this time.

shell_542

I don't know how but there needs to be a better way to make it fairer for both sides. It doesn't work at the moment. I think it's disgusting that they think taking money from one family to ensure a child is getting what they need, can leave other children going without.

Yes NRP who try and shake off their responsibilities are wrong but it's those trying to do the right thing that a lot of the time end up being screwed.

PlayingHardball

Blob wrote: »

Yes they do grow up and go out into the world, but how many NRPs have second or future relationships distroyed by the actions of the CSA.

My opinion is that the amount shoud be caped in 2 ways;

1. Assesment based on a 40 hour week, therefore everyone knows where they are, and both sides can get on with thier lives.

2. As it is based on IS rates and the Gov recon an aldult can live on those then that is the max that the assesment can be set at.

I accept that this is a very simple view, but in my opinion this would remove the CSA as a weapon for PWC to use, and at the same time remove some of the fighting that is the norm at this time.

If you qualify for income support, you also qualify for council tax benefit, child tax credit, a varity of home grants, free school meals, and other 'free' benefits which are not available to the majority of non income support collecting PWC. Therefore, the 'capped' idea (i.e., approx £65 per week) is unreasonable. It would seem obvious that those on IS are able to have much lower living costs than those not on IS.

It is a simple view. The CSA is NOT a 'weapon', rather a 'tool' for insuring that children are financiall supported by both biological parents. I agree with an earlier poster who commented on the high income NRP should just accept that they pay a larger amount. Are you suggesting that if a relationship goes wrong in a high income household, should the NRP just be expected to contribute £65 per week, while he/she is earning up to £2,000 or more per week? What about the child, and the level of comfort that a parents high income provided? Does the rug get pulled out from underneath them?

Blame? Percentages? At the end of the day, its all about the children. I wish all parents would feel this way, then there would be no need for the CSA.

delain

Blonde_Bint wrote: »

Heres something really touchy.

I think divorce should be very difficult almost impossible to achieve. It should be made clear before they marry what they are doing and that the only way out is in a box. try to make people stay together. No more living in sin lol either.

A marriage between 2 people is hard enough, but when you add a third person to your families finances who gets a very big say in your finances then it makes a second relationship almost impossible. its not always about handing a percentage of cash over its more about someone else outside your household being able to say, I want an extra 10er this month. or you cant go and do x on that date because I want you to do this. sometimes it feels like you dont run your own life someone else does.

Like the old days where my ex watched his father beat his mother, then considered it totally normal to do the same to me because his mother had nowhere to go so he watched this his whole childhood??

I think that would escalate deaths from domestic violence tenfold!

I was a victim of it and it was already hard enough for me to leave, without all this. He threatened to assault (i wont be specific) me if i contacted the CSA and hides all his money anyway as he is self employed on a cash business.

It's not always black and white, as you can see, the breakup was his fault and i got, and continue to get, F*** all.

shell_542

It is used as a weapon by some though. And the bottom line being the CSA doesn't care if a NRP can't afford what they demand. Where is the sense in that?

I'm grateful we don't have to use the CSA. I think the whole system is a shambles.

Gorgeous_George

If it was about children, the Government wouldn't care. It's about the Treasury.

Like it or not, some PWC take the 15% and spend it on themselves. When my boy visits I have to provide a home (heated etc.), buy him clothes. I give him pocket money, take him swimming, to football, the cinema etc.. My ex wife does not.

I would give my kids everything that I have. I want to give my ex nothing - not a penny. She cost me enough when we together.

I'm not bitter

GG

Blob

Hi PlayingHardball

Yes it is all about the children, unfortunatly as you say not everyone follows this line! What of the children of the second family, if the CSA are used as a "Tool" and the NRP uses that "Tool" as a weapon and then deprives the second family of money to the extent that the second family split. The CSA have then distroyed a family unit, the money that is then available to teh children of both partnerships is reduced to a level that is going to be less than the amount that would be available if it were based in IS, so now by your lodgic and I mena no offence there are 2 sets of kids that are going to have no father and little money.

Surely it has to be better to give both a chance, the child/ren from the first union and the children from the second family should have a chance. As if it is caped then the money deprevation caused by a system that can and is used as a weapon to get back at former ex's, is removed.

A case in point, a friend of mine left his wife, and 2 kids, the second was liveing at home but was working so outside of the CSA. He ended up being Sectioned under the Mental Helth Act and in hospital for a short time as a result of the split nearly killed himself. He check how much the CSA wanted from him and paid this direct after leaving hospital and comming back to work with us. He came to see me and said that his ex was going to the CSA as she had been told that she would get more, [weapon comming in]. He said fine, the CSA did thier assesment and found that he would be paying less through them! He paid through them as that was what was demanded by his ex, no problem! The money that he had being paying direct had been given by his ex to thier son so he could get to College. His son came to him for money as his mother had stoped giveing him this money and asked for more, he had to tell his son that 'Sorry but I can only afford to pay this money once, please see your mother'

So who suffered? Please dont tell me that it is not used as a weapon, as how many PWC only agree to contact at a level that wont affect the CSA assesments! From the number of people that come to me I know the numbers, and yes it is without doubt a weapon and is used as such!

The system has to be changed, and it has to be caped, either in the way on this post or in some other way. As it is the pendulm is starting to swing back the other way. So in my view change is coming one way or another, hopefully it will be for the better, we will see!

TotallyBroke

Maybe the payments could be paid in some sort of voucher scheme in that it can be accepted against children's clothes, gas/electric bills, local swimming pools or other sporting activities.
Then there would be no way the money would be spent on booze and fags and entertaining new loves etc

Blonde_Bint

delain wrote: »

Like the old days where my ex watched his father beat his mother, then considered it totally normal to do the same to me because his mother had nowhere to go so he watched this his whole childhood??

I think that would escalate deaths from domestic violence tenfold!

I was a victim of it and it was already hard enough for me to leave, without all this. He threatened to assault (i wont be specific) me if i contacted the CSA and hides all his money anyway as he is self employed on a cash business.

It's not always black and white, as you can see, the breakup was his fault and i got, and continue to get, F*** all.

Oh dear, awful thats awful that is. and yes, its not black and white at all I do get that. I feel for your situation and that situation should have help and support to get out and start again.

However, for my own circumstances, sometimes our pwc and her absolute usage to the max of throwing the csa at us just made me want to throw the towel in some days. If I left my husband I would have got somewhere to live without her harrassing me, in peace paid for by ex hubby the thought was a nice one. if I had left my husband it would have been to get away from his ex and for no other reason. I have 2 friends who divorced their husbands because of malicious pwc, they just wouldnt put up with it anymore and they said it was the best thing they had done, but they broke up a second family because they were not willing to live in the abuse that their pwc heaped on them. I dont blame them for leaving but one of them is getting married next year for the 4th time:eek: and between her and her husband to be they have 5 kids her 3 each of which has his own dad and his 2 I wouldnt want to work out the child support arrangements in that household lol:D

question: should it be that easy for me to leave my husband if my reason for leaving is simply, i'm sick of his pwc and I just want to get away from her, oh and by doing that i'll be getting my life paid for, for the forseeable because thats what my 2 friends both did. should I be able to bail just because the going got a little tough and I couldnt be ar sed?