CSA taking to much,what can I do

Loopy_Girl

And it's just as well that these kids had at least one parent that put them first...funnily enough, a 'wimmen'

speedster

i refuse to have a battle of wits with someone who is completely unarmed.

Loopy_Girl

Dear dear....yet another man that throws in the towel easily when faced with challenges....*sigh*...ach well...:D

kingfisherblue

Speedster, some PWC are victims of the CSA. It has taken four years for me to get regular maintenance from my ex. I only went through the CSA because he wouldn't pay after agreeing to a private arrangement. During that time, I have struggled financially. The CSA have been very longwinded - but I am finally receiving regular maintenance and arrears, after battling for so long. During the whole time, I have never prevented my kids from seeing their dad; I have actively encouraged them.

speedster

no point putting effort into giving info when the reciever already knows everything.

head into brick wall scenario.

Loopy_Girl

Well I know how to spell receiver for a start;)

Just because I don't agree with you, doesn't make me wrong. Something you are struggling to grasp.

speedster

kingfisherblue wrote: »

Speedster, some PWC are victims of the CSA. It has taken four years for me to get regular maintenance from my ex. I only went through the CSA because he wouldn't pay after agreeing to a private arrangement. During that time, I have struggled financially. The CSA have been very longwinded - but I am finally receiving regular maintenance and arrears, after battling for so long. During the whole time, I have never prevented my kids from seeing their dad; I have actively encouraged them.

you are to be applauded. not many pwc have your attitude.

if mine did, she'd get more than a fiver a week. but while she is happy to cut off her nose to spite her face, then rissoles to her.

she only likes the rules when they benefit her and has now come thouroughly unstuck,not only is she worse off financially but is also losing our daughters respect.

speedster

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

Well I know how to spell receiver for a start;)

Just because I don't agree with you, doesn't make me wrong. Something you are struggling to grasp.

picking up on one spelling error???? is that the extent of your case? pathetic.

i can quite easily grasp your attitude. i thought attitudes like that didn't exist. obviously i was mistaken.

off you trot to report me now then. ta ta.

Loopy_Girl

speedster wrote: »

you are to be applauded. not many pwc have your attitude.

And you are making this statment from what source? How do you know? Do you speak to many (granted with your attitude you may not get far with the ladies but you never know...;))

You moaned on here last night about people giving their personal (nor personnel - that's a department in an organisation) stories and saying they are gospel and you are doing exactly the same?!!

I would cut my arm off for contact for my daughter and it breaks me just as much as any NRP....you don't see me rushing to the Clyde with a pair if concrete bootees on though do you?

RoyalBlues

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

I don't think I have ever heard of a PWC suicide...plenty of despairing stories but they realise that the kids have to come first whatever the circumstances. Maybe these alledged 62 suicides knew that...no need to worry anout the kids, the 'wimmen' will be left to pick the emotional and financial mess.

Are you for real???

Firstly, I assume that by "anout" you actually mean "about" ??? Please confirm.

PWC = Parent With Care.............so by definition that particular parent (in 92% of cases that is the mother) lives with AND is quite at liberty to exercise PAS (Parental Alienation Syndrome) upon those saddened children who have, through no fault of their own, lost regular contact with their daddy.

62 NRP, CSA based suicides.............are you getting it yet?

Quote "emotional and financial mess" unquote..........Is it not at all possible that the 'emotional mess' may have been caused by the laws of this fine land that we live in (lmfao) forcing fathers, oops, I mean NRPs to be detatched from their beloved kids and the 'financial mess' actually be caused by the CSA and their inability to act in a rational way in deciding what each individual NRP "victim" can afford to pay?

At least CSA1 allowed for a bloke (oops, how silly of me, I mean NRP) to rent or buy a place big enough to house his beloved children for the obligatory 1 night in 14. CSA2 is probably what drove those poor 62 souls (R.I.P) to their graves.

CSA2 is flawed and is a national disgrace, as are each and every of the CSA case workers that I have had the displeasure of dealing with.

I have an awful feeling that 62 will not be the final total........