Private Arrangement

AnxiousMum

But would that not be the same type of PWC who would threaten to withhold contact with the kids if they didn't get their own way? The thing is - a child is entitled to a set amount - so as long as you have the paperwork to show your earnings etc., can't a PWC stomp their feet and scream as loud as they want to - but you are still protected by the paperwork you submit?

I DO know that there have been many cases where errors have been made on the part of the CSA - don't get me wrong.

I would still advise to any party involved to go through the CSA - as at the end of the day, the most important individual in all of it is the child. You have a private agreement for years, and all is well, and then for whatever reason, the payments can stop. If it was all with CSA to begin with - then it would be straight to simple enforcement procedures (or, the non paying parent submit the paperwork to show a change in circumstances), but with going private only UNTIL there is a problem, then there is a long delay while everything gets started up through the CSA.

alwayspuzzled

AnxiousMum wrote: »

But would that not be the same type of PWC who would threaten to withhold contact with the kids if they didn't get their own way? Yes unfortunately.

The thing is - a child is entitled to a set amount - so as long as you have the paperwork to show your earnings etc., can't a PWC stomp their feet and scream as loud as they want to - but you are still protected by the paperwork you submit? In theory yes, but 1st you have to divulge every part of NRP and NRPP's finances to include a detailed list of exactly what income and expenditure each has every month to a person that has already demonstrated that they are not subject to the moral dos and don'ts the rest of us abide by.

I DO know that there have been many cases where errors have been made on the part of the CSA - don't get me wrong.
And this is the fear we live with until her bogus appeal is finally dealt with as she appealled in Oct 09, it was sent to tribunal in about April 10 and we are still waiting for a hearing date.

I would still advise to any party involved to go through the CSA - as at the end of the day, the most important individual in all of it is the child. You have a private agreement for years, and all is well, and then for whatever reason, the payments can stop. If it was all with CSA to begin with - then it would be straight to simple enforcement procedures (or, the non paying parent submit the paperwork to show a change in circumstances), but with going private only UNTIL there is a problem, then there is a long delay while everything gets started up through the CSA.

I do actually agree with this just wanted to point out its not only non compliant NRP who cause 'unpleasantness'

I am a PWC and a NRPP, I have a private agreement with my ex which did always work reasonably well, despite the fact it means the CS he paid was only about 1/2 of what the law suggests. I do wish I had applied to the CSA from the beginning as now boys are older and childcare costs are reducing school trips etc are increasing and all of a sudden their dad can't afford to pay his half (funny I'm expected to on an income of 16K when he can't afford to on over £40K).

I think the reason I said we'd do it privately was mainly the stigma of the CSA, the fact I was trying to keep things amicable for the boys sake and that if I had said lets go thru the CSA it would have looked like I was punishing him/being mean/money grabbing etc and maybe in the process soured his relationship with the boys.

AnxiousMum

alwayspuzzled wrote: »

I do actually agree with this just wanted to point out its not only non compliant NRP who cause 'unpleasantness'

I am a PWC and a NRPP, I have a private agreement with my ex which did always work reasonably well, despite the fact it means the CS he paid was only about 1/2 of what the law suggests.

So, if you HAD gone through the CSA, you would've been able to plan for the children's future by putting some of it aside each month for the days, like now, when their expenses are more than what they were when little, avoiding the problem in your next para.

I do wish I had applied to the CSA from the beginning as now boys are older and childcare costs are reducing school trips etc are increasing and all of a sudden their dad can't afford to pay his half (funny I'm expected to on an income of 16K when he can't afford to on over £40K).


I think the reason I said we'd do it privately was mainly the stigma of the CSA, the fact I was trying to keep things amicable for the boys sake and that if I had said lets go thru the CSA it would have looked like I was punishing him/being mean/money grabbing etc and maybe in the process soured his relationship with the boys.

Unfortunately, the way it is set up here does create a 'stigma' of wrongdoing for the NRP. That's my reasons for believing that ALL orders for child support should be registered. I know I harp on about the Canadian system - but it works. All orders are made before a judge in the court system, and they have guidelines that they HAVE TO adhere to. Once the order (and you can have a consent order that deviates if you can show just cause for the deviation - which is an order that both parents have come to agreement of by themselves) is registered in the court, it is then routinely registered with the enforcement agency. You never have to deal with the enforcement agency though if there is never a problem.

It's a very simple process in Canada - you both get to appear before the judge, or correspond in writing to represent yourself, there are no lawyers necessary to get involved (unless it's part of the divorce proceedings), and rather than dealing with someone by correspondence or telephone only, you are dealing face to face with the judge so a truer picture can be gained. You get to show your documentation etc. and clear up any discrepancies that might be a misunderstanding from the paperwork. Again, I'm sooooooo glad I don't have to deal with the CSA in it's current format

RedSky

AnxiousMum wrote: »

I imagine it only gets 'unpleasant' when the NRP stops fulfilling their financial obligation.

Imagine the scenario, as a PWC, that you have to justify to the CSA the money you receive is only spent according to set Gov rules and regulations. These rules do not allow for reasoning or negotiation and individual circumstances are mostly ignored. Once your details have been submitted, questioned and verified then someone will dictate to you what you can spend the money on and how much you can or cannot spend. Certain exceptional expenses are allowable but by variation only.

Then imagine that the NRP only put the PWC through this because they wanted the comfort of knowing their money was being spent appropriately and the PWC is being regularly monitored.

Would you expect, as a PWC, to feel incriminated or simply content that you were being "monitored" by the CSA? Would it not be "unpleasant" even though you are complying with your obligations? Would you choose this, as a PWC, over a private agreement? Is it acceptable for the NRP to choose this and the PWC has no choice but to comply?

AnxiousMum

RedSky wrote: »

Imagine the scenario, as a PWC, that you have to justify to the CSA the money you receive is only spent according to set Gov rules and regulations. These rules do not allow for reasoning or negotiation and individual circumstances are mostly ignored. Once your details have been submitted, questioned and verified then someone will dictate to you what you can spend the money on and how much you can or cannot spend. Certain exceptional expenses are allowable but by variation only.

Then imagine that the NRP only put the PWC through this because they wanted the comfort of knowing their money was being spent appropriately and the PWC is being regularly monitored.

Would you expect, as a PWC, to feel incriminated or simply content that you were being "monitored" by the CSA? Would it not be "unpleasant" even though you are complying with your obligations? Would you choose this, as a PWC, over a private agreement? Is it acceptable for the NRP to choose this and the PWC has no choice but to comply?

In reality, PWC's are being 'monitored' every day by various agencies! GP's, kids' schools/nurseries - and if our children are not being provided for properly and their needs being neglected then there can be serious consequences for the PWC.

Also as a NRP, if you feel your children are not being provided for properly by the PWC, then go for custody of them!

Alot of NRP don't see the 'underlying costs' of children - size of house dictated by how many children you have, heating, petrol running them to activities, cost of the activities, birthday parties they go to, extra curricular activities, costs of heat/light, days off work with no pay to care for them when ill - the list could go on and on.

To be perfectly honest, if I were asked to show how the child support was spent on the kids - it wouldn't be a problem - and in fact I could probably show that it doesn't go near to covering half of their living costs over the course of their lives.

I think alot of NRP think that their child support payments should be used solely for buying the latest gadget, the best designer named shoes etc.......what you have to look at is, 'is the child living as close to the same standard of living that they would've had had the parents remained together'. If yes, then all is good, if no, then you as a NRP need to take steps to ensure that the needs of your children are being met - even if that means applying for custody of the children.

RedSky

AnxiousMum wrote: »

In reality, PWC's are being 'monitored' every day by various agencies! GP's, kids' schools/nurseries - and if our children are not being provided for properly and their needs being neglected then there can be serious consequences for the PWC.

Is this type of monitoring not applicable to both parents if they are both have parentally responsible?

AnxiousMum wrote: »

Also as a NRP, if you feel your children are not being provided for properly by the PWC, then go for custody of them!

CM and custody are not linked. An NRP is not an NRP because they cannot financially provide for their children the same as custody is not naturally given to a PWC on the basis they can better financially provide for their children.

AnxiousMum wrote: »

Alot of NRP don't see the 'underlying costs' of children - size of house dictated by how many children you have, heating, petrol running them to activities, cost of the activities, birthday parties they go to, extra curricular activities, costs of heat/light, days off work with no pay to care for them when ill - the list could go on and on.

I don't dispute this.

I was not suggesting PWCs are monitored. My point was that if you can imagine a scenario where PWCs are monitored by the CSA then can you also imagine that PWCs might find it "unpleasant" even without having CSA corrective enforcement action? And if a PWC is not monitored for the convenience of the NRP why should an NRP be monitored purely because it suits the PWC, as you suggested?

AnxiousMum

RedSky wrote: »

Is this type of monitoring not applicable to both parents if they are both have parentally responsible?


CM and custody are not linked. An NRP is not an NRP because they cannot financially provide for their children the same as custody is not naturally given to a PWC on the basis they can better financially provide for their children.


I don't dispute this.

I was not suggesting PWCs are monitored. My point was that if you can imagine a scenario where PWCs are monitored by the CSA then can you also imagine that PWCs might find it "unpleasant" even without having CSA corrective enforcement action? And if a PWC is not monitored for the convenience of the NRP why should an NRP be monitored purely because it suits the PWC, as you suggested?

Actually, my children's NRP isn't monitored becuase it suits me, he's monitored because there it is the law - that all maintenance agreements either court ordered or by consent, ARE registered with them.
It's not to suit me, the PWC, but to ensure that the children are provided for as they should be. If the NRP's payments suddenly stop - there's no time wasted in enrolling in the program, getting copies of court orders etc. to them, and all the delays that go along with it. By having it registered to begin with, (and the nrp can CHOOSE whether to pay through the program, or direct to the PWC and the PWC reports payments made) then IF and WHEN there is a problem, the timeframe to get enforcement action is shortened remarkably than if it wasn't registered to begin with.

I think the Canadian system also does this so that it's the law the agreements are registered, and so takes away the issue of 'the pwc's doing this to p*ss me off'.

I think it's also done that way, as if the PWC is ever on benefits - the maintenance enforcement is then payable to the government - a single parent cannot get benefits there unless they provide the details as to who they go after for child support, and the government goes after the NRP if the PWC hasn't already. No idea what they do in the case of an 'unknown' parent.....lol

RedSky

The reason I contributed to this thread was your advice in post #5

AnxiousMum wrote: »

After 15 years of dealing with child support - I would start off with the CSA!

AnxiousMum wrote: »

Do it by CSA to begin with, have it monitored

In my opinion, "monitoring" by the CSA can be unpleasant regardless of whether additional enforcement action is taken or not. Your NRP is understandably being monitored because your relationship and private agreement broken down etc. He originally had a choice to play fair but chose not to.

Your advice to the OP in post #5 was to ignore any attempt to use a private agreement and incriminate the NRP from the outset, purely for the PWC's convenience, by going through the CSA. If PWCs do not appreciate why an NRP being monitored by the CSA can be incriminating then imagine if PWC's had to justify their expenditure of child support which was monitored by a set of "one rule fits all" Gov regulations enforced by the CSA.

Having not agreed with your advice I joined in this thread to explain and debate my opinion. But regardless of my opinion, PWCs using the UK system can choose not to use a private agreement, even if one is offered on the table and without forfeit, while NRPs can only hope a PWC is open to a private agreement otherwise they have no choice but to suffer the consequences through no fault of their own.

AnxiousMum

RedSky wrote: »

In my opinion, "monitoring" by the CSA can be unpleasant regardless of whether additional enforcement action is taken or not. Your NRP is understandably being monitored because your relationship and private agreement broken down etc. He originally had a choice to play fair but chose not to.


Having not agreed with your advice I joined in this thread to explain and debate my opinion. But regardless of my opinion, PWCs using the UK system can choose not to use a private agreement, even if one is offered on the table and without forfeit, while NRPs can only hope a PWC is open to a private agreement otherwise they have no choice but to suffer the consequences through no fault of their own.

Youre right - our private agreement broke down, and when it did break down, it took almost 2 years to get it sorted with and get payments back on track. During that two years, one son had several high cost trips through school that needed to be paid for, and saving of child support should've been happening for university expenditure. It also caused undue stress to my partner who did his best along with me to ensure that my son got what he required. Had it been 'registered' to begin with, that two years would've been reduced to about two months. THAT is why I suggest having it registered through the CSA so that enforcement can be taken in a timelier manner IF it is required. It's not for the 'joy' of the PWC, it's for the basic financial security for the child.

PlayingHardball

Anxious,

I'm happy to say that my CSA case was indeed 'registered' from before the time the ex stopped paying, and now due to the success of my tribunal he will be liable for backdated money due to my child. I hope we all agree that it is only fair. Thats why I think going through the CSA is a very good thing to do, but of course my ex would never have agreed to a private agreement, and equally I never would have trusted him to stick to it. So, in my case, CSA was the only option and one I certainly advocate.