Private Arrangement

AnxiousMum

RedSky wrote: »

Understandable that enforcement procedures are required when an NRP defaults and I agree you should not have to pay charges in such situations. What I don't agree with from your previous post is your recommendation that both the taxpayer and the NRP pay a price (both in monetary and incriminating terms) just so a PWC can use the CSA as their default insurance policy. People do change and the future cannot be predicted but presuming someone is guilty at the outset without a chance to prove innocence is not likely to help matters.

But......if like with the Canadian system, ALL orders for child support are registered with Enforcement, then it takes the sting out of 'pwc' trying to make the 'nrp' look bad or whatever, as ALL agreements are registered. The other thing that is just as enforceable though is contact with the children and the NRP - a PWC can't just say 'nope - contact isn't happening 'cos you've p'd me off' - just doesn't work that way. So, I guess in a way with the above system, maintenance is registered for enforcement, and if access doesn't happen - you have more immediate assistance in terms of the law.

I haven't said (I don't think so anyway) that either party should pay for the right to have CSA involvement - I believe the initial registration should be free, and then, if the nrp defaults, then yes, they should be fined/sanctioned for it.

RedSky

AnxiousMum wrote: »

I haven't said (I don't think so anyway) that either party should pay for the right to have CSA involvement - I believe the initial registration should be free, and then, if the nrp defaults, then yes, they should be fined/sanctioned for it.

The CSA costs money to run and if parents don't pick up the bill then the taxpayer does. While having CM assessed by an enforcement agency brings comfort to a PWC, having their personal finances investigated then dictated to by enforcers causes resentment for an NRP. I don't know how the agreements are reached in Canada but enforcement should be a penalty and not a means to incriminate one just for the convenience of the other who wants a comfort blanket, as can happen with the CSA. Hence I would favour a private agreement to begin with and only use the CSA if things go wrong.

kelloggs36

I would have been furious to be charged for applying for child support, as my ex was the most non-compliant he could be! At the same time the CSA were unwilling without lots of pressure from outside eg MP and complaints, to do much about it. Ex was finally forced to pay through the courts, but he wasn't sanctioned in any way - had he had to pay extra on top of his maintenance, may have given him a kick up the backside to stop playing silly beggers! Because no sanctions etc, the case took 8 years from start to end.

speedster

RedSky wrote: »

The CSA costs money to run and if parents don't pick up the bill then the taxpayer does. While having CM assessed by an enforcement agency brings comfort to a PWC, having their personal finances investigated then dictated to by enforcers causes resentment for an NRP. I don't know how the agreements are reached in Canada but enforcement should be a penalty and not a means to incriminate one just for the convenience of the other who wants a comfort blanket, as can happen with the CSA. Hence I would favour a private agreement to begin with and only use the CSA if things go wrong.

perhaps if our "all knowing chimps" that run the country hadn't bought in the benefit exemption, then the money could do what the csa was set up to do, ie. pay back some of the mahoooosive benefits bill run up by waynetta slob, vikki pollard and her cronies, instead of making being a PWC an easy job which is higher paid than many.

the term "career pwc" is being bandied about a lot. all they do is fire out a few kids to blokes with a bit of cash, then claim all the benefits going plus 15% net from whichever suckers they can snare.

just go to the new estate near me that they've filled with waynetta and her chums to see it.

kelloggs36

I actually totally agree with you Speedster - makes a change, but I really think that it was a huge mistake to allow PWCs to keep all their benefits and Child Support, as it just makes a mockery of all the hard working ones who have pride and work for a living rather than taking from the taxpayer (or if they do, the bare minimum). This just means that it is an incentive to live apart and have multiple children with multiple men.

AnxiousMum

RedSky wrote: »

The CSA costs money to run and if parents don't pick up the bill then the taxpayer does.

Yep - it does cost money to run. So do all the back to work programs, expensive treatments on the NHS, Criminal prosecutions etc. - and as a working taxpayer, I'm sure my tax monies go to providing for those services, yet I am yet to use one of them!

Everybody pays the taxes, so everybody can benefit from any of those services should it become necessary.

However, 'enforcement' of a wayward NRP who is dodging the responsibility of supporting their children - CAN be avoided if they were compliant. If they choose not to be compliant, then make them pay for the service. NHS doctors will impose a fee if you miss appointments, and therefore wasting their time and creating more work for them. So, a fairly similar approach with the CSA

If a NRP has no intention of dodging their responsibility - I don't really see why it hurts to be registered with the CSA. It is after all, about providing for the children's needs.

RedSky

AnxiousMum wrote: »

If a NRP has no intention of dodging their responsibility - I don't really see why it hurts to be registered with the CSA. It is after all, about providing for the children's needs.

That almost makes it sound as though being an NRP under the CSA is a pleasant experience where parents are praised for being responsible. The reality is very often different where NRPs have to justify and defend, are accused and threatened, and generally treated as untrustworthy who must pay the price for a wrong doing.

Sublime_2

I've not bothered with any paperwork, and there is no set amount for me (enough though), but I have a private arrangement which suits me fine. I didn't want to go to the CSA, as no need.

AnxiousMum

RedSky wrote: »

That almost makes it sound as though being an NRP under the CSA is a pleasant experience where parents are praised for being responsible. The reality is very often different where NRPs have to justify and defend, are accused and threatened, and generally treated as untrustworthy who must pay the price for a wrong doing.

LOL - I don't think anybody who is a responsible parent is looking for praise from the CSA for being responsible! I imagine it only gets 'unpleasant' when the NRP stops fulfilling their financial obligation. How is that different from your bank - who you have to set up a direct debit with each month to pay your loan, and then when you stop paying your loan, they have to come after you with enforcement measures? Do you look to your bank for praise as well for fulfilling your obligations, or do you expect it to turn unpleasant if you stick to the terms and conditions of your agreement? In reality - being 'monitored' by the CSA or having your mortgage payments 'monitored' by your financial institution are very similar.

I wish that the same protection was available for NRP's who get denied access by the PWC whenever they decide they want to change the rules though!

alwayspuzzled

AnxiousMum wrote: »

LOL - I don't think anybody who is a responsible parent is looking for praise from the CSA for being responsible! I imagine it only gets 'unpleasant' when the NRP stops fulfilling their financial obligation.

Its also VERY 'unpleasent' when the PWC decides to appeal the CSA's desicion and sends off appeal paperwork full of lies, accusations and allegations about the NRP.