Liability Order,

LizzieS_2

chriszzz wrote: »

In a earlier post I said that maybe pwc can take the nrp to court to give them access to their emotional responsibility. As the nrp was doing that whilst living in the home, why should that stop when he has to leave the family home?

I was stating that pwc who deny access for no other reason than that of abusing their power should be fined because them pwc want the nrp money to help with the financial support. It does happen!1

Is it not fair to say that a nrp who denies access is avoiding contact costs of being with the child. Set fines are ok if you apply them equally to those denying contact and those refusing to take on contact.

It would be interesting to see what up-take you have on the pwc who denies access, is it fair that the nrp has to pay court costs just to try and see there children? is it right for the pwc to abuse her childrens well-being by cutting out contact?

This is one where I actually disagree with legal aid being granted to either parent - without legal aid the parent at fault would be the one ruled to pay the costs or costs split equally if both have some element of blame.

What would you propose that should be done other than taking the nrp money? These things do happen, its not just about money, nrp has a responsibility emotionally and financially and pwc has a responsibility to help there children to develop relationships and some are being denied that natural loving relationship with the nrp, who do want to support there children in both these responsibilities

On your last point, both parents have financial & emotional responisibility.

chriszzz

Is it not fair to say that a nrp who denies access is avoiding contact costs of being with the child. Set fines are ok if you apply them equally to those denying contact and those refusing to take on contact.
I don't see it as though they are avoiding contact costs, I see it that they are avoiding there emotional responsibility, whether they spend or not on contact day is really not as important than the quality of time they spend together, I don't know of any child who has happy memories of the money the nrp spent, there memories are more to do with the love they shared.

It would be interesting to see what up-take you have on the pwc who denies access, is it fair that the nrp has to pay court costs just to try and see there children? is it right for the pwc to abuse her childrens well-being by cutting out contact?

This is one where I actually disagree with legal aid being granted to either parent - without legal aid the parent at fault would be the one ruled to pay the costs or costs split equally if both have some element of blame.

LizzieS wrote: »

On your last point, both parents have financial & emotional responisibility.

I agree with the above but unfortunately it does not work that way. In the end its these situations that the children suffer, each and every time.

I say shame on either pwc or nrp who act selfishly and don't take all responsibility seriously, they have a duty of care to their children, whom they are suppose to be protecting and yet they are failing them.

stressed_nrp

I say shame on either pwc or nrp who act selfishly and don't take all responsibility seriously, they have a duty of care to their children, whom they are suppose to be protecting and yet they are failing them.[/QUOTE]

It is shame on them, but at the moment who stops this happening, clearly not the CSA. As for courts, as I said earlier, they cost so much not many NRPs can afford to carry on cases where access is granted and fails every few months. It's an insane system that allows parents to be prevented from being parents while making them pay for the priviledge. I honestly think that parents should have shared custody half week at mums and half week at dads and that's the only way round it.

Blonde_Bint

stressed_nrp wrote: »

I say shame on either pwc or nrp who act selfishly and don't take all responsibility seriously, they have a duty of care to their children, whom they are suppose to be protecting and yet they are failing them.

It is shame on them, but at the moment who stops this happening, clearly not the CSA. As for courts, as I said earlier, they cost so much not many NRPs can afford to carry on cases where access is granted and fails every few months. It's an insane system that allows parents to be prevented from being parents while making them pay for the priviledge. I honestly think that parents should have shared custody half week at mums and half week at dads and that's the only way round it.[/QUOTE]

thats a whole new argument that is Stressed :rotfl: and i'm not going to be the one to start it, gonna let the honours go to someone else:D

shell_542

Blonde_Bint wrote: »

It is shame on them, but at the moment who stops this happening, clearly not the CSA. As for courts, as I said earlier, they cost so much not many NRPs can afford to carry on cases where access is granted and fails every few months. It's an insane system that allows parents to be prevented from being parents while making them pay for the priviledge. I honestly think that parents should have shared custody half week at mums and half week at dads and that's the only way round it.

thats a whole new argument that is Stressed :rotfl: and i'm not going to be the one to start it, gonna let the honours go to someone else:D[/QUOTE]

I said this in another thread a while ago. :rotfl:

In an ideal world it would be best.

stressed_nrp

shell_542 wrote: »

thats a whole new argument that is Stressed :rotfl: and i'm not going to be the one to start it, gonna let the honours go to someone else:D

I said this in another thread a while ago. :rotfl:

In an ideal world it would be best.[/QUOTE]

I know I know , I think they do this in other countries (perhaps sweden?), not sure how it works thou - can't be any worse can it???

bdt1

Stressed nrp, you can try and contact bailiff, to clarify tha alleged arrears being challenged at moment, it didn't stop them in our case though - they in our experience are open to negotiating a fixed payment scheme that you can afford suppose it's worth a go

shell_542

stressed_nrp wrote: »

I said this in another thread a while ago. :rotfl:

In an ideal world it would be best.

I know I know , I think they do this in other countries (perhaps sweden?), not sure how it works thou - can't be any worse can it???

The main problem being that in a standard family there is normally someone who works more than the other. The father working full time, mother a stay at home Mum or vice versa. So it's difficult when a couple split for the person working full time to then be able to care for a child 50% of the time. If it were possible it would be great I think. No complaining "I have the pay more towards the daily upkeep/bills of the child". All that would need to be split would be other costs, clothes/school fees/extra curricular activities etc.

stressed_nrp

bdt1 wrote: »

Stressed nrp, you can try and contact bailiff, to clarify tha alleged arrears being challenged at moment, it didn't stop them in our case though - they in our experience are open to negotiating a fixed payment scheme that you can afford suppose it's worth a go

Thanks btd1 - I am waiting to hear the outcome of the court application, moved house recently and being 3 days short of having baby thought I would let them get on with it and grant an order rather than go there and attempt to challenge any application which I now see is fruitless (attending court would only cause blood pressure and stress levels to boil).

I have already requested my data files and they've sent me a letter confirming receipt of my request, however no files yet (barely within the 40days now but fingers crossed will arrive soon. However, I also made contact with nasca (unfortunately it was too late to assist in advising with court) and they've confirmed that I cannot have collected an amount if it's incorrect. So I am hoping the CSA will look at the spreadsheet I attached to the letter outlining the discrepency and arrears and reassess.

However, one thing that they mention is that if a child is in enducation then leaves for a while then re-enter education the liability for maintenance continues throughout the time they were not in education. Since the CSA told me that I was no longer liable and then wrote again some time later to advise a new application had been made following re-entry into education do I have a "get out" in respect of being liable i.e. would the continuation of maintenance only apply if the pwc failed to tell CSA about leaving education??

stressed_nrp

shell_542 wrote: »

The main problem being that in a standard family there is normally someone who works more than the other. The father working full time, mother a stay at home Mum or vice versa. So it's difficult when a couple split for the person working full time to then be able to care for a child 50% of the time. If it were possible it would be great I think. No complaining "I have the pay more towards the daily upkeep/bills of the child". All that would need to be split would be other costs, clothes/school fees/extra curricular activities etc.

Shell I know - it sounds ideal (which shocks me because there is no way that my partner would ever call me an idealist ) Perhaps the other thing that would assist this is being pushed through would be if the government actually got off their backsides and forced employers to make flexible working available to all parents. There is a lot they could do to support parents with an w/out care but they seem totally disinterested in doing it which shows how little they give a damn. Makes the blood boil :mad: