No evidence to support there claims

chriszzz

Kimitatsu wrote: »

But the other side of the coin is that had the NRP paid the liability in the first place then there would be no arrears, If you read steve40 post you would see that he has been meeting his liability and why should one set of children be discrinated against in favour of the others? Yes and that would be the first children being favoured!! As its not usually the first children who loose their home as we all know PWC keep the marital home to raise their children. I dont think its fair that second children should loose their home if the NRP has arrears. Any human being would not want to see any child wether 1st or 2nd children loose their home.As an NRP, usually you are aware that you have children to support, so you should put steps in place to ensure that you do that. If you choose to ignore that and then build up arrears both morally and legally you should be paying them back, I agree they should pay their arrears but not by making children homeless, in this day and age its disgraceful for people to think that its ok to make any child homeless in favour of any other child and shame on those that thinks its ok the PWC has still had to feed and clothe those children.

As for the benefits issue - why should all the taxpayers bring up your children because you dont want to? I have no issue in ensuring that children are kept out of poverty but when the NRP doesnt want to pay for their children but expect everyone else to do so then I get a bit cross! :mad:

Get cross for all the other reasons that the taxpayer pays for and that is also for PWC who block contact and NRP has to take PWC to court toget access to see children, courtsey of the tax payer!!

As for you saying why should one set of children being discriminated against in favour of others, why then are children discriminated against not being allowed in recieving full maintenance when PWC has no choice but be on benefits due to looking after children until school age. Those children are discriminated against!!! they dont receive all monies from NRP they live in poverty!!!, whereby PWC who works P/T, F/T recieves all benefits C/B W/T, C/T and allowed to keep all maintenance!!! Maybe we both have different outlook to what poverty really is!!

markeymark

just read this post, seem's that their is a serious issue with the falkirk office, i too have been treated apawlingly by them, they are a law unto themselves, they never learn from their mistakes and i doubt they ever will, all i can say is try hang in there, all the best

Kimitatsu

chriszzz wrote: »

Get cross for all the other reasons that the taxpayer pays for and that is also for PWC who block contact and NRP has to take PWC to court toget access to see children, courtsey of the tax payer!!

As for you saying why should one set of children being discriminated against in favour of others, why then are children discriminated against not being allowed in recieving full maintenance when PWC has no choice but be on benefits due to looking after children until school age. Those children are discriminated against!!! they dont receive all monies from NRP they live in poverty!!!, whereby PWC who works P/T, F/T recieves all benefits C/B W/T, C/T and allowed to keep all maintenance!!! Maybe we both have different outlook to what poverty really is!!

Firstly I wasnt replying to Steve40's post - I was replying to you!

The first children are hardly favoured as if the NRP and PWC had been together then they would have had 50% of the NRP's income, instead they are awarded between 15 and 25% of the NRP's net income. ANd I think you should keep your sweeping statements to yourself - there are many PWC's who do not get to keep the marital home, or are awarded a percentage of the home whilst struggling to upkeep that home on the maintenance they have been awarded under the CSA.

I dont think it is acceptable to make anyone homeless but Steve40's case is a complete mess and his is the extreme end of the issue. I dont know the full extent of his case and I wish him well in his tribunal and hope that he does not lose his case. However your post referred to in your opinion rather than a reply to the OP.

I do get cross because there are few PWC's who would get more in maintenance than they do in benefits - not saying it is there fault but the impression that you gave was that you didnt want to pay the arrears and as they were on benefits is was ok. Besides your point is moot after April as all PWC's will be able to keep full maintenance as well as benefits - now that could be seen as discriminating!

It is well documented on this forum that I have never condoned contact blocking and never would so perhaps you should read some of the other threads before making sweeping comments.

kelloggs36

I could say that my child was discriminated against because the NRP chose to buy a large house and denied any income and it took years of me fighting to get the CSA to believe me (with evidence) rather than the NRP - his new children were clearly favoured over mine as he couldn't pay for existing children as he now had new ones!!!!!! I was never on benefits, never contact blocked and struggled to get by - my new husband took over the costs of raising a child who was not his because he is a good man. The NRP however, denied his daughter everything rather than support her and was allowed to get away with it for many years.

chriszzz

We are tackling child poverty

We make sure parents who live apart from their children contribute financially to their upkeep by paying child maintenance. (This is the Statement the CSA made about child poverty not me)



I too was referring to steve40 post who he and his family are having a terrible time with the csa, and my comment is not a sweeping comment about csa taking children out of poverty, in this case they are putting children into poverty!!


As for arrears I agreed with you that they should pay but not to the expense of their children suffering thats hardly taking children out of poverty, the csa should mean all children not just 1st children, all children matter and they should take into consideration when they are about to be putting other children on the poverty line.


Unfortunately nothing much can be done about claiming benefits for 1 there isnt enough jobs and 2 most employees dont pay enough for most of us to live on without having to claim benefits and children wether pwc working or not should be able to have their maintenance to help them out of poverty.

chriszzz

kelloggs36 wrote: »

I could say that my child was discriminated against because the NRP chose to buy a large house and denied any income and it took years of me fighting to get the CSA to believe me (with evidence) rather than the NRP - his new children were clearly favoured over mine as he couldn't pay for existing children as he now had new ones!!!!!! I was never on benefits, never contact blocked and struggled to get by - my new husband took over the costs of raising a child who was not his because he is a good man. The NRP however, denied his daughter everything rather than support her and was allowed to get away with it for many years.

Its obvious that he isint a good man....Good men dont abandon their children emotionally or financially.
Lets just get one thing straight....am not anti pwc but there is a flaw in the csa and the way they are conducting themselves and surely not every NRP is lying when they say the csa have caused them problems and are now in a mess due to them.

Yes there are some NRPs who are devious and trying to escape their responsibilities and unfortunately that seems to be the case for you and your daughter and NO he shouldnt get away with it but as I said before I dont believe that other children should have their home took off them due to the NRP owing maintenance arrears

I was referring to steve40 post and what he and his family are going through not everyones personal feelings on their own experiences.

PlayingHardball

Well, I think any NRP that chooses to deny their child 'adequate' emotional or financial support is NOT a good person. You KNOW if you have a kid - you have responsibilities. Full Stop.

PlayingHardball

Reading back some of the posts on this thread......IF NRP just were responsible financially for all of their kids in the first place...hmmm (there would be no discussion, surely)

Kimitatsu

chriszzz wrote: »

We are tackling child poverty

We make sure parents who live apart from their children contribute financially to their upkeep by paying child maintenance. (This is the Statement the CSA made about child poverty not me)



I too was referring to steve40 post who he and his family are having a terrible time with the csa, and my comment is not a sweeping comment about csa taking children out of poverty, in this case they are putting children into poverty!!


As for arrears I agreed with you that they should pay but not to the expense of their children suffering thats hardly taking children out of poverty, the csa should mean all children not just 1st children, all children matter and they should take into consideration when they are about to be putting other children on the poverty line.


Unfortunately nothing much can be done about claiming benefits for 1 there isnt enough jobs and 2 most employees dont pay enough for most of us to live on without having to claim benefits and children wether pwc working or not should be able to have their maintenance to help them out of poverty.

The CSA was never going to be a one size fits all solution, and it is obvious that Steve40 is one of the NRP's who has been caught up in the mess of beurocracy and red tape that the CSA has created so my comments were not aimed at him. The fact that he has a case to go to tribunal in itself says volumes.

The general issue with arrears though, as any PWC will tell you is that they have coped without that money and in some cases got themselves into debt to provide for their children whilst the NRP has been refusing to pay and racking up arrears. Why should they have to wait for those arrears, when the NRP has refused to pay? I can only speak from experience, that the NRP in my case refuses to pay maintenance because he "doesnt want to pay for me" he cant see that the money goes on his children. Thankfully like Kellogs I am now married to a good man who supports both his children and mine - as far as he is concerned they are all his and he treats them equally. In my case I have been fighting for almost 10 years to get the CSA to wake up and smell the coffee, now that they have, if it goes to compliance and tribunal would it not be fair if he was made to sell one of his houses or to remortgage because of the refusal to pay maintenance?

I certainly am not saying that the CSA is a perfect machine, and it definitely does make nistakes but for every one of us here on these boards that are frustrated and have had a case messed up, there are many who have money that they otherwise would not have recieved, for many PWC's just the threat of taking an NRP to the CSA is enough to ensure they get a regular payment of some sort. I am certainly not pro or anti either side, but for some NRP's they start out with the best intentions but 18 years is a long time to be paying for a child and in many cases their lifestyle changes as it goes. For some they dont see their children as a priority and so dont see why they should pay.

chriszzz wrote: »

Its obvious that he isint a good man....Good men dont abandon their children emotionally or financially.
Lets just get one thing straight....am not anti pwc but there is a flaw in the csa and the way they are conducting themselves and surely not every NRP is lying when they say the csa have caused them problems and are now in a mess due to them.

Yes there are some NRPs who are devious and trying to escape their responsibilities and unfortunately that seems to be the case for you and your daughter and NO he shouldnt get away with it but as I said before I dont believe that other children should have their home took off them due to the NRP owing maintenance arrears

I was referring to steve40 post and what he and his family are going through not everyones personal feelings on their own experiences.

chriszzz

Kimitatsu wrote: »

The general issue with arrears though, as any PWC will tell you is that they have coped without that money and in some cases got themselves into debt to provide for their children whilst the NRP has been refusing to pay and racking up arrears. Why should they have to wait for those arrears, when the NRP has refused to pay? I can only speak from experience, that the NRP in my case refuses to pay maintenance because he "doesnt want to pay for me" he cant see that the money goes on his children. Thankfully like Kellogs I am now married to a good man who supports both his children and mine - as far as he is concerned they are all his and he treats them equally. In my case I have been fighting for almost 10 years to get the CSA to wake up and smell the coffee, now that they have, if it goes to compliance and tribunal would it not be fair if he was made to sell one of his houses or to remortgage because of the refusal to pay maintenance?
Can you clarify this for me please, are you implying that you would allow for his other children to become homeless in order for you to recieve the arrears he owes you?.

If he has more than one home then yes absolutely he should sell one of them to pay arrears, if he could not afford to remortgage I would like to think we could come to some kind of reasonable arrangement for him to pay off his arrears, I personally couldnt make his children homeless for arrears own to me.

I too am a PWC (female) by the way! Like you and kellogs I too raised my children without any input from the NRP.

Athough they never had designer clothes, they were clothed and fed well, lived in the marital home that was kept warm, went on holidays every year, I never went into debt, I made my money stretch, my children have learnt to appreciate little things in life and yes they wanted dad in their life and have obviously felt rejected but unfortunately that is out of my hands.

I certainly am not saying that the CSA is a perfect machine, and it definitely does make nistakes but for every one of us here on these boards that are frustrated and have had a case messed up, there are many who have money that they otherwise would not have recieved, for many PWC's just the threat of taking an NRP to the CSA is enough to ensure they get a regular payment of some sort. I am certainly not pro or anti either side, but for some NRP's they start out with the best intentions but 18 years is a long time to be paying for a child and in many cases their lifestyle changes as it goes. For some they dont see their children as a priority and so dont see why they should pay.

To finish off......the discussion is about csa, steve40 and his family, I was merely pointing out in my first post that the csa are suppose to be lifting children out of poverty and I think that should mean ALL children, at the end of the day its no childs fault if their parent/s act irresponsible.