Order of Sale enforcement

chriszzz

meds12 wrote: »

Good for you! I split with my partner two summers ago for about a month, and as it was my decision to split I told him I didn't want any maintenance, and he could have whatever access arrangement he chose - 50/50 etc. He was clearly willing to work and fund our house and lifestyle - as a family, but as I wanted the split I thought that morally I should be the one to fully fund it (taking away his family was bad enough, leaving him destitute as well would have been even worse), and we even divided our savings 50/50. In the end, we sorted out our issues and got back together. However, I think if he had been the one to choose to split up (and leave my with sole care of our child), I would have definitely, definitely have assumed that he should be paying child maintenance.

Hi,

What a wonderful person you are :A. I agree with what you have posted here.

Am so pleased that you both got back together :T its rare to hear a story like yours.

I too agree that if he had been the one to choose to split, then I would of definitely assumed that he should be paying maintenance.

Soubrette

Although I applaud the sentiments expressed that if a person causes a break up they should be liable for child maintenance but if they did not then they should not be liable, I do think that child maintenance are payments made towards the upkeep of the children. I don't think that it is necessarily fair on them to say that 'I fell out of love with my husband and left so therefore our children will have a much lower standard of living than if we'd stayed together'.

To me it actually makes more sense to say that I left the marriage therefore my ex husband chooses whether or not to be the main carer of the children and thus chooses to pay I pay child maintenance or he does - this is of course more complicated than this eg if the reason the person left was because of abuse issues or the children's preferences.

Child maintenance is not supposed to be a punitive punishment for the one who left the marriage - it is supposed to keep the children from being disadvantaged (as far as possible) from a situation which is not of their choosing.

It also underlines the fact that a child has two parents with responsibilities for them but along with those responsibilities are certain rights.

Sou

Soubrette

Just to clarify - when I say child maintenance I mean that both parents make a fair contribution to the child's upbringing - I don't care if it's a sum of money that changes hands in a private agreement, or the NRP buys things directly for the child or even if the PWC has a large income and the NRP puts money away for the child, whatever really as long as both PWC or NRP agree - I feel the CSA is a last resort for parents that can't agree or for when one distrusts the honesty of the other but child maintenance can take many forms (and sometimes not even financial).

Sou

Blob

Sou, you are correct in the statment that both parents should pay and I have no time for people that dont, my post show this at least I hope they do. But to say that it is not punitive, I think is a little too far. The NRP has to have a chance to live, I know that Kellogs has a different view, and her view is based on her own experiance with her ex, and she is entitled to that view based on these experiances. However everyone has to be able to look after themselvs, before they can then look after someone else, so makeing it imposible for the NRP to survive invites non-compliance, so that teh NRP can survive.

The basic principal of the CSA is a good one however it has lost its way, through political intervention and mismanagment by the people in the CSA,as well as the people that work at the bottom of the system, as has beeen shown on here as well as in the press. One of the main floors in the system as it stands is that you can work yourself into debt, and then you cant get out of it, this is fundermentally wrong, and distructive to any chance the child will have parents that are at least civil to each other in front of the child and then don't run the other down when the child is on their own with the one parent.

My ex stated in Court that she did not try to turn the children against me, and it would hsve been easy for her to do this if she wanted! If that was the case then why have numerious mothers of teh cbildrens friends told me that they were there when she did her best to turn them against me. Thesse efforts are now comming home to roust as the chilren are comming up 16 and 18 and spend as little time with their mother as possible and when they are there they fight with her and her current husband. I personally feel that if the CSA had not been involved there would have been an agreement made and kept to, but she got bad advice from a number of people and has led us to where we are today!

speedster

well. if the poster who claims to be an employee is anything to go by, no wonder the whole system is in meltdown.

Soubrette

Blob wrote: »

Sou, you are correct in the statment that both parents should pay and I have no time for people that dont, my post show this at least I hope they do. But to say that it is not punitive, I think is a little too far. The NRP has to have a chance to live, I know that Kellogs has a different view, and her view is based on her own experiance with her ex, and she is entitled to that view based on these experiances. However everyone has to be able to look after themselvs, before they can then look after someone else, so makeing it imposible for the NRP to survive invites non-compliance, so that teh NRP can survive.

The basic principal of the CSA is a good one however it has lost its way, through political intervention and mismanagment by the people in the CSA,as well as the people that work at the bottom of the system, as has beeen shown on here as well as in the press. One of the main floors in the system as it stands is that you can work yourself into debt, and then you cant get out of it, this is fundermentally wrong, and distructive to any chance the child will have parents that are at least civil to each other in front of the child and then don't run the other down when the child is on their own with the one parent.

My ex stated in Court that she did not try to turn the children against me, and it would hsve been easy for her to do this if she wanted! If that was the case then why have numerious mothers of teh cbildrens friends told me that they were there when she did her best to turn them against me. Thesse efforts are now comming home to roust as the chilren are comming up 16 and 18 and spend as little time with their mother as possible and when they are there they fight with her and her current husband. I personally feel that if the CSA had not been involved there would have been an agreement made and kept to, but she got bad advice from a number of people and has led us to where we are today!

I'm trying to say that child maintenance is not supposed to be a punishment.

I do acknowledge that for a certain proportion of people they will be - for some because they like to live a lifestyle beyond their means and for others because the CSA mismanaged their case (there's probably a few other reasons too that don't spring to mind) but these are side effects of the CSA - not the intention of.

Unfortunately with an ex like yours - I'm sure she would find a way to make your life a misery with or without the CSA.

I actually find Kelloggs very impartial - if we didn't know her story then I'll bet people would find it hard to tell if she were PWC or NRP. Yes she has had her experiences of the CSA but she also acknowledges that plenty of NRPs have had a raw deal and tries to offer constructive advice.

Sou

Blob

As for my ex, she has openly tried to blame me and she believe this to be the truth and has refiused the evidence of the findings of both ICE and the Ombudsman, for the failings of the CSA. What can I say the investigation is there and she is due compensation, but wont take the evidence!

As for Kellogs and the rest of us come to that! The past colours the the future and the present, and we should all remember that, especially me, and I am open about this on some occasions I dont remember. I try not to critisise people for acting from their experiance, but am human and fail on many occasions in my endevors!

Steve40_2

Soubrette wrote: »

How can there be two sides to every story but the CSA always treat the absent parent as criminals?

Isn't that oxymoronic?

It amazes me how many people have a horrible (and sometimes unfair) experience with the CSA and somehow generalise it to the whole population - in your instance it is as if there is no evidence of NRPs who do not pay a penny, job hop to avoid paying, use every loophole at their disposal etc and whom the CSA seem to not treat as a criminal.

Yes, I'm sure you've had a horrible experience Steve40 and I'm equally sure there is a good chance the CSA have dealt with your case ineptly and made certain assumptions about you that were unfair.

I've had that experience too with the CSA and I'm the PWC - if you read the boards with an open mind there are a mixture of NRPs and PWCs who have had this kind of experience with the CSA.

Sou

I suppose what i trying to say is we have a rule in this country called innocent until provent guilty . I challenge any NRP to forward evidence to CSA that prove's that the PWC is comitting deception and get the CSA to take any notice of it . As previously stated NRP's are treated as criminals wether people like it or not and 90% of the time is why NRP's leg it.

I know this off the beaten track but just thought i would add this when i divorced my X a county court hel me liable to pay maintenance for another mans child that my X wife openly admitted in court was not mine and was the result of an affair she had. And i thought our justice system handed child maintenance over to the CSA. Clearly not it still stands in family law as child of the family

Blonde_Bint

Blob wrote: »

So if the arrears are the fault of the CSA and this is accepted by the CSA, and the money that has been asked for has been paid, then is then also OK for the CSA to make the NRP homeless because they failed to do the job they were set up to do and have accepted this as well. Also what about the NRPPs that have got togeather with the NRP after the relationship has ended and they have built a home, possibly with the money to start the new home comeing from the NRPP in the first place, is it still OK for the CSA to make them homeless and take the money effectivly from the NRPP?

We all know the score now Blob, so in 2009 i'd say 'NRPP be ware'. most of us know someone living with a pwc or an nrp its much more the norm now than it ever was so today I feel there is no excuse. There is more information about this circumstance now than there was 10 yrs ago.

I'm going to be very vigilant on behalf of my daughter when she gets older and if I had a son i'd be tempted to give him the snip at 15 :rotfl: and i'm only half joking on that last point there.

chriszzz

It does appear that the second family are always in the firing line and under threat when the csa have made errors.

The PWC who rightly wants maintenance, sits waiting for it to go through into there bank account and on the otherside the NRP is being threatened with, with holding driving license etc, even imprisonment, selling of the home even if NRPPs has been the one who has put the majority of the money into the home, plus they too are PWC.

What adds insult to injury is that, not all ,but some of this is down to the csa being incompetent and then still want to put the blame on the NRP

Its a pity the government don't have this attitude and action for PWC who deny contact to the genuine NRP