OK, is it me? ......

seven-day-weekend

....please forgive me if it is.

I've read several threads about the CSA on this board and it seems to me that the parents with the children quite often want blood! They do not seem to be happy with their ex-partner paying his/her half, they want more, even to the extent of impoverishing his/her second family. Why is this? Why should the parent without the children pay more than half? Sometimes the people who want blood will not even allow the parent without the children to see them. This seems wrong to me.

I hasten to add that I've been happily married to the father of my son since Adam was a lad and therefore have never dealt with the CSA. But I know people who have and it seems biased against the person who hasn't got the children and , in some cases, never even sees them because the person who does have them won't allow it.

Don't mean to upset anyone, but this is how it appears to me. I am quite happy to be convinced that I am wrong.

*Louise*

I think the CSA has a poor system which is drastically in need of an overhaul.

The thing that really annoys me when a couple part ways is when (most often) the father has to pay for the upkeep of the kids, but is never allowed to see them because the mother just won't allow it.

Fair enough if there's a good reason..drink, drugs or violence etc, but out of sheer spitefulness is just an awful thing to do and not fair on the children. If they want the money - then they should allow fair access.

jenniferpa

While I agree the system is seriously flawed, I do think whether the non-custodial parent can afford to raise a second family is a bit of a red herring. Specifically, his first set of children came first. If you were married to the same person forever, and had say 3 children, if you couldn't afford to raise more, would you have more? Probably not. Budgeting is budgeting however many families are involved - you cut your coat according to your cloth. I realise that lots of second marriages result in more children, but I think it's somewhat specious to say "I can't afford to raise this new family" after the fact.

In my opinion, custodial parents who restrict contact with non-custodial parents for any reason other than abuse are poor parents - the children must come first.

hobo28

seven-day-weekend wrote:

....please forgive me if it is.

I've read several threads about the CSA on this board and it seems to me that the parents with the children quite often want blood! They do not seem to be happy with their ex-partner paying his/her half, they want more, even to the extent of impoverishing his/her second family. Why is this? Why should the parent without the children pay more than half? Sometimes the people who want blood will not even allow the parent without the children to see them. This seems wrong to me.

I hasten to add that I've been happily married to the father of my son since Adam was a lad and therefore have never dealt with the CSA. But I know people who have and it seems biased against the person who hasn't got the children and , in some cases, never even sees them because the person who does have them won't allow it.

Don't mean to upset anyone, but this is how it appears to me. I am quite happy to be convinced that I am wrong.

Undoubtly there are those who do want blood. That's wrong but there are many who just want a little help from their ex.

In my situation financially I'm happy for my ex to contribute a token amount, more to prove the status quo than be any real use to me.

I think people must realise that seeing the children and paying for them are two seperate issues. Just because a person chooses not to see their kids does not mean they should not pay for them. I agree that if access is withheld for no good reason then that is wrong. However, they still need to pay as the child ultimately needs to be raised. The taxpayer should not have to subsidise them.

seven-day-weekend

I agree that any absent parent should pay towrds the upkeep of their children, and that existing chilfden should come first. But it so often, to me at least , seems that the parent with the child wants the absent parent more than half.....shouldn't they have to be responsible too?

And I also agree that paying for the children should not depend on whether the absent parent sees them ot not, but quite often they are not even given the choice.

I can quite understand how the Fathers for Justice feel, although I don't agree with all their methods.

Thanks people fopr youir input.

Prudent

I do not understand the point you are making about more than half. For one child the csa asks for 15%, for two children it is 20% and for three children or more it is 25%. At no point do they take half. Even if arrears are owing they only take an extra 2 - 5%.

wayne

jenniferpa wrote:

While I agree the system is seriously flawed, I do think whether the non-custodial parent can afford to raise a second family is a bit of a red herring. Specifically, his first set of children came first. If you were married to the same person forever, and had say 3 children, if you couldn't afford to raise more, would you have more? Probably not. Budgeting is budgeting however many families are involved - you cut your coat according to your cloth. I realise that lots of second marriages result in more children, but I think it's somewhat specious to say "I can't afford to raise this new family" after the fact.

In my opinion, custodial parents who restrict contact with non-custodial parents for any reason other than abuse are poor parents - the children must come first.

so basically what you are saying is that children should be treated as an object yeh?you get divorced meet someone else but before you do anything else you have to sit down and work out if you can afford to get this new love pregnant.if people sat down and worked out how much it costs to bring up a child noone would have children.

Lady_S

I do understand the original posters comments as it sometimes feels like we are being bled dry. However, I do also understand how difficult it is for parents with care also as I have seen my friend struggle for many years.

From our point of view it is heartbreaking for my partner to be refused access to see his children, and it happens on a whim. But the children are always told that it is him not wanting to see them. It is then equally gutting that she is refusing him access as she says that he isn't any kind of dad to them but we are still paying for them. That case could be spent on a solicitor to try and get better access.

The thing I find a real rape is that we are expected to contribute, which we do by direct debit ( instead of the CSA having to make an attachment of earnings) but he is not considered a family. His income is well below the requirements for wftc, but as the kids don't reside with him he doesn't get to claim, yet he still has to pay. ( does that make sense).

We are very frugal with ourselves, but, we do for the kids what we can. However, it is also really annoying when we get there and were on a tight budget and we can't claim anything and we get the ''mummy said to ask you for x y z because you can afford it'' No doubt if the kids mum was more ameniable with contact arrangements then we would be more willing to be flexible and help out, but we always see a court battle to see the children looming and have to save for this. As it is we pay the CSA, and that is the full and final figure she will get.

skylight

I think a lot of this starts when the ex-partner without the kids, finds themselves a new partner.

I have had several friends who have gotton nasty when their ex-hubbys found themselves new "birds with legs to their armpits". Just jealousy.

Neither of them had new BF's and felt left out (ironically in both cases the ex-hubbys were kicked out after wives had affairs!), then the kids were banned from meeting women who were old enough to be their big sisters and it turned into "woe is me - I am a poor single Mum, no money and my ex refuses to give me more, everyone feel sorry for me" etc....

Mind you, these two showed their true colours and we are no longer in contact (after a few arguments about "home truths!")

OH and I never paid a penny for his daughter to wife no.1. We knew the money would be spent on drink/drugs etc and it was a case of over our dead bodies. Strangely enough, when I explained to ex-wife that as she was a lazy cow and didn't work (not once since I have known her in 15 yrs) anything we paid would be deducted off her benefits automatically, and if there were a few weeks we didn't bother to pay.......

Okay - so I know this was blackmail, but this woman was having our money over my dead body. DD1 NEVER went without. We put electric/gas in their meters once a month, did a small Tesco shop once a month for them and we paid for all school outings, uniform and pocket money etc.

Lady_S

charlotte664 wrote:

I think a lot of this starts when the ex-partner without the kids, finds themselves a new partner.

I have had several friends who have gotton nasty when their ex-hubbys found themselves new "birds with legs to their armpits". Just jealousy.

Neither of them had new BF's and felt left out (ironically in both cases the ex-hubbys were kicked out after wives had affairs!), then the kids were banned from meeting women who were old enough to be their big sisters and it turned into "woe is me - I am a poor single Mum, no money and my ex refuses to give me more, everyone feel sorry for me" etc....

This is exactly what happened to my OH, he left after his ex tried to find herself a new fella under his nose. She didn't want anything to do with him unless he was babysitting, then as soon as he found me she went loopy. She accused him of all sorts, assaulted him etc etc and prevented him seeing the kids.

The children still come to me saying things about how much their mummy hates me, but I just either don't respond or tell them that I don't hate their mummy as she is important to them. ( even though that isn't what I really feel).

Thriftylady

There is another side to all of this, which is really frustrating as well. My sisters husband left her and has not supported their three children. She lives on benefits and doesn't see the point in co-operating with the CSA to get money out of her husband because anything they get from him will be deducted from her benefits. My sis (who I love dearly, but do not see eye to eye with on anything at all!) doesn't seem to grasp that the principal at stake here is not ultimately about the amount of money in her pocket, its about the fact that the money to raise their children should come from her and their father, not from the general taxpayer. When my baby is born in a few weeks time, myself and my OH will raise it at our own expense. Why should the likes of my (ex)brother in law just get to opt out because he moved out of the family home, which was his own decision.