Too Many Loopholes for NRP!

DUTR

PlayingHardball wrote: »

Until you get hit with a variation order from the CSA, lifestyle 'inconsistent'......sadly for people quite willing to dodge their financial responsibilities to their children such as yourself, this won't guarantee you any success.

How many of these are actually successful?

gratefulforhelp_2

DUTR wrote: »

I don't have the answer, perhaps if the maximum recieved was limited to say what CB is or factored by the income of the PWC, then perhaps some may not find the process unfair or as a money spinner ?

So what about there being some kind of morality spin on it?

Just asking the questions....

should a person who got pregnant and was "on the pill" on a one night stand have the same expectations for CS as a person who planned a baby in marriage with a partner, and then the same partner did a bunk?

Should the pwc be penalised for having a good job/ a job at all?

*ducks to avoid missiles*

DUTR

gratefulforhelp wrote: »

So what about there being some kind of morality spin on it?

Just asking the questions....

should a person who got pregnant and was "on the pill" on a one night stand have the same expectations for CS as a person who planned a baby in marriage with a partner, and then the same partner did a bunk?

Should the pwc be penalised for having a good job/ a job at all?

*ducks to avoid missiles*

No need to duck, the last line, I meant the PWC with a good job/job would be more rewarded.
Or perhaps the CS is just received as vouchers for clothes shops, activity centres etc

gratefulforhelp_2

So the pwc gets more CS if s/he earns more?

and actually, I know its really almost impossible to bring morality into it, but what if the person who chose to split the family up was financially penalised?

Would that lead to a whole load of accusations of domestic abuse that were unfounded?

Soubrette

Child maintenance is about the child not about the adults in a relationship.

There should be no child penalised because the PWC split up the marriage. There should be no child penalised because the NRP split up the marriage.

Adults divorce each other, they should not divorce their children who should be entitled to both a relationship and financial support as they would have been if their parents had stayed together.
For everyone who has commented on their particular idea - change maintenance to access (or vice versa) and see if you still agree with your idea.

If you do - then at least you are logically consistent even if I don't personally agree, if you don't, then perhaps you might consider that you are somewhat biased against the PWC (or the NRP if you consider access is somehow ok to withhold but never maintenance).

gratefulforhelp_2

Thats an interesting view, sou. I'm not saying these are what I think should happen, since I don't think any morality based view would be workable, but I'm interested in hearing views, think thats why PHB started the thread?

I do think that you can't just swap contact and CS around in a sentence, or an idea, and in that I agree with you.

However, it is true that some people treat divorce as just that - they have left the family home so they have left the family. Including their child/ren.

markeymark

from the time ive been on this forum ive observed that the majority of NRP's who seem to flaunt the CSA system are the one's quite well off and have sufficient finances to pay, makes me sick to read them

im by no means well off but i have moral's, been (and still being) shafted by CSA but i wouldnt deny them anything, but i sacrify my treats etc so that my kids are very well provided for, and not just meaning the money i contribute towards CSA, meaning spoiling them when i have them and giving them things that i never got when a kid, some NRP's should pull their heads out of their !!!!!! and wake up to financial responsibility!

DUTR

markeymark wrote: »

from the time ive been on this forum ive observed that the majority of NRP's who seem to flaunt the CSA system are the one's quite well off and have sufficient finances to pay, makes me sick to read them

im by no means well off but i have moral's, been (and still being) shafted by CSA but i wouldnt deny them anything, but i sacrify my treats etc so that my kids are very well provided for, and not just meaning the money i contribute towards CSA, meaning spoiling them when i have them and giving them things that i never got when a kid, some NRP's should pull their heads out of their !!!!!! and wake up to financial responsibility!

Their financial responsibilities are paying the csa though, if they pay that , then what is the problem? like you Im not well off, like you I pay the csa what is due. If you want to give anymore that is up to you, it does not make you a better person than anybody else on the forum, after all many have said, a parent is not about how much money and treats you can give a child :beer:, there will be life experiences and lessons that money just cannot buy.

PlayingHardball

I agree with Markey....it does seem that those who earn lots of money are less likely to want to part with it. Like my ex.

I agree with those that say money doesn't buy happiness, and that there are free things that parents can contribute to enrich their childrens lives, teaching and nurturing their children, leading by example, etc.

I guess if my daughter was even benefiting from those free things from Dad, I wouldn't take such issue with the financial bit. Too many children missing out all round!

gratefulforhelp_2

PlayingHardball wrote: »

I guess if my daughter was even benefiting from those free things from Dad, I wouldn't take such issue with the financial bit. Too many children missing out all round!

This sums up how I feel.