Quick question DEO

DUTR

AsknAnswer2 wrote: »

Can't ask a question on here without people detracting from the question asked and hijacking an OP. I asked a question which required a straightforward and factual answer, I didn't ask for people's personal opinions of the CSA or whether being a criminal offence is "morally" right.

I did not indicate whether this was to do with an ongoing case, (which it isn't) nor did I indicate that an NRP must be a "he" which isn't always the case. Who said anything about a PWC being a "she" or about any court order in place? I know I didn't, so goodness only knows how those all came into the equation of the question I put.

There is plenty of room on the forum for others to do that, please have some respect for other members and use that space for discussion if you so wish, rather than taking over a thread entirely. Thank you.

True, but it does look like you answered your own question 45 mins later, so just chill out.
Not everybody changes their jobs to avoid DEO's so that is an assumption also, perhaps the NRP forgot to inform the CSA for one reason or another.
As no child is going to freeze or starve to death the actions and benefits of the CSA are not all some like to try and make out. There is enough evidence on the forum to support that.
I trust the thread can be closed now as it has served it's purpose and will only drift and turn into a debate or worse

AsknAnswer2

DUTR wrote: »

Not everybody changes their jobs to avoid DEO's so that is an assumption also, perhaps the NRP forgot to inform the CSA for one reason or another.

Where, precisely did I state that this was always the case. I asked when an NRP fails to inform in order to evade, I did not anywhere in my posting indicate that this is always the case, However my question related to when this is the case. You assumed I was making that assumption which I most certainly was not. Don't put words into my mouth.

Thread can be closed now if no-one else has objections to it.

RedSky

Try a legal forum used by legal professionals to answer the specifics of a legal enquiry. Public user forums will inevitably contain public opinion.

DUTR

AsknAnswer2 wrote: »

Where, precisely did I state that this was always the case. I asked when an NRP fails to inform in order to evade, I did not anywhere in my posting indicate that this is always the case, However my question related to when this is the case. You assumed I was making that assumption which I most certainly was not. Don't put words into my mouth.

Thread can be closed now if no-one else has objections to it.

Well it was expressed in the original post, in fact looking at the whole thread now, it looks like a 'test/experiment' to see how people respond and assume , rather than a genuine enquiry. Which is fair enough, glad the original quastion has been resolved though.

AsknAnswer2

It was not expressed in the original post. It was expressed when it is done in order to evade. At no point did I insinuate that this is always the case. You did that, not me. If I wanted opinions I wouldn't be shy in asking for them. Test indeed. Crikey people are paranoid on this forum.

Redsky, the law is public information and is publically available; I simply couldn't find the SI I was looking for and hoped someone dealing specifically in CSA would be able to clarify as those who implement it or are on the receiving end of it would likely know better, because try as I may I could not find a forum which specialises in CSA legal advice for free and I certainly wasn't going to pay for publically and freely available information. If it were not public people could not be reasonably expected to know or comply with any type of law.

Found_true_love

AsknAnswer2 wrote: »

I'm almost sure I read somewhere that it is now a criminal offence when an NRP with a DEO in place fails to inform the CSA of a change of employer (CSA2) in order to evade paying child support.

Is there any truth in this?

Okay then following on from your logic to the answers you have recieved on this public non legal (but very very free and informative) site

It seems to me that you may be some form of law student so I must first ask the question, how would you prove that the NRP is (deliberately attmpting to) evade paying?

RedSky

If you don't ask, you don't get. A clearer request for the SI in your original post may have fulfilled your requirement a lot quicker regardless of whether the information is publicly available or not.

AsknAnswer2

Found_true_love wrote: »

It seems to me that you may be some form of law student so I must first ask the question, how would you prove that the NRP is (deliberately attmpting to) evade paying?

I'm not interested in proving or disproving, and if I were then that would depend largely on what evidence was available and whether it was being brought to court in accordance with criminal law i.e. proof required beyong all reasonable doubt, or in civil law proceedings, i.e. on the balance of probability. An NRP who did not fulfill their responsibility of informing already commits the offence whether or not the intention to deliberately evade was there; from what the legislation states (now that I've found it) the offence is not commited upon deliberate evasion or the attempt to, but upon failure to inform a change in employment (among other things) within 7 days.

I'm no advocate/solicitor/procurator/barrister, nor do I have the intention of being one, hence why I hold no interest in proving how someone commits an offence.

RedSky wrote: »

If you don't ask, you don't get. A clearer request for the SI in your original post may have fulfilled your requirement a lot quicker regardless of whether the information is publicly available or not.

Granted, but I had my reasons for not doing this.

Found_true_love

AsknAnswer2 wrote: »

I'm not interested in proving or disproving . An NRP who did not fulfill their responsibility of informing already commits the offence whether or not the intention to deliberately evade was there; from what the legislation states (now that I've found it) the offence is not commited upon deliberate evasion or the attempt to, but upon failure to inform a change in employment (among other things) within 7 days.

I'm no advocate/solicitor/procurator/barrister, nor do I have the intention of being one, hence why I hold no interest in proving how someone commits an offence.

So you have your answer, why are you so interested in all the discussions now?

My you a re a person of mystery!!!!!!! lol

AsknAnswer2

I'm not interested in the discussions, however if a person poses a question would it not be considered rude not to answer it where possible?