Private Arrangement

RedSky

So PWCs should decide from the outset that no NRP is capable of maintaining a private agreement and as all PWCs have a choice, they should accept from the beginning that their NRP is going to be guilty in the future and therefore should choose to incriminate them from day one.

I struggle to understand why people regard this as fair and morally correct. Why not send all NRPs to prison from day one as it can be assumed they will resist enforcement procedures at some point in the future and should be punished for it now. As long as the PWC, and children living within their household, are financially protected against a situation that may not happen, who cares what happens to NRPs.

PreludeForTimeFeelers

RedSky wrote: »

So PWCs should decide from the outset that no NRP is capable of maintaining a private agreement and as all PWCs have a choice, they should accept from the beginning that their NRP is going to be guilty in the future and therefore should choose to incriminate them from day one.

I struggle to understand why people regard this as fair and morally correct. Why not send all NRPs to prison from day one as it can be assumed they will resist enforcement procedures at some point in the future and should be punished for it now. As long as the PWC, and children living within their household, are financially protected against a situation that may not happen, who cares what happens to NRPs.

The NRPs can set up a direct debit with the CSA for payments, and if the PWC knows that they have been compliant, they can easily change to a private agreement at a later date. I think it's down to the NRPs to prove that they can be trusted to make the payments.

DUTR

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

The NRPs can set up a direct debit with the CSA for payments, and if the PWC knows that they have been compliant, they can easily change to a private agreement at a later date. I think it's down to the NRPs to prove that they can be trusted to make the payments.

I pay a standing order to the CSA and always have done, the trouble would start if a private arrangement was requested

PreludeForTimeFeelers

DUTR wrote: »

I pay a standing order to the CSA and always have done, the trouble would start if a private arrangement was requested

You've touched on something I was going to mention, a lot of NRPs would much rather just pay the CSA directly than have a private agreement - that way you know you're paying the correct amount, and you know you're paying regularly too.

RedSky

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

The NRPs can set up a direct debit with the CSA for payments, and if the PWC knows that they have been compliant, they can easily change to a private agreement at a later date. I think it's down to the NRPs to prove that they can be trusted to make the payments.

There have been posts on here from NRPs where they were never given the option from the CSA to set up direct debits, the CSA went straight for a DEO through no fault of the NRP. Personally, I don't agree with the theory that NRPs should naturally be treated as untrustworthy and have to prove they can be trusted before they are given a fair chance.

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

You've touched on something I was going to mention, a lot of NRPs would much rather just pay the CSA directly than have a private agreement - that way you know you're paying the correct amount, and you know you're paying regularly too.

Any standing order can be set up to pay an agreed amount at regular intervals, not just payments made to the CSA. If you have made a private agreement then surely the amount you both agree to is going to be the correct amount regardless of whether it is the same or different to a CSA assessment.

AnxiousMum

RedSky wrote: »

So PWCs should decide from the outset that no NRP is capable of maintaining a private agreement and as all PWCs have a choice, they should accept from the beginning that their NRP is going to be guilty in the future and therefore should choose to incriminate them from day one.

I struggle to understand why people regard this as fair and morally correct. Why not send all NRPs to prison from day one as it can be assumed they will resist enforcement procedures at some point in the future and should be punished for it now. As long as the PWC, and children living within their household, are financially protected against a situation that may not happen, who cares what happens to NRPs.

Why do you see it as fair then, that a child who is reliant upon support from both parents, is at the mercy of an NRP who, when decides that there's someone more important to spend money on, means that the child has to go without and can only depend on what the PWC can provide? Again......for the sake of the children (who the CS is meant to provide for) - why not just ensure from the beginning, that their needs will be met.

When an NRP does decide to stop paying, most PWCs give some time for them to come good (I gave over a year, and he finally said 'I'm not paying a dime more') before going for enforcement. IF it is already with the enforcement agency, then the time can be shortened and the child is ALWAYS provided for.

I find it interesting that you say 'who cares what happens to NRP's' - well, if the NRP does fulfill their financial obligation.....just what is going to happen to them? They only become unstuck (in majority of cases) where they stop paying and get dinged with a 40% of salary DEO to pay back arrears!

How about 'who cares what happens to the child' when the PWC relying on support from the other PARENT is left struggling to meet all expenses on their own?

IF you intend to always help support your children - I honestly don't see the problem But situations change, and the child's needs should ALWAYS be protected.

RedSky

AnxiousMum wrote: »

Why do you see it as fair then, that a child who is reliant upon support from both parents, is at the mercy of an NRP who, when decides that there's someone more important to spend money on, means that the child has to go without and can only depend on what the PWC can provide? Again......for the sake of the children (who the CS is meant to provide for) - why not just ensure from the beginning, that their needs will be met.

So, in your opinion, the CSA should be used as a means to prevent a situation that has not or may not ever happen? Regardless of how the NRP is treated, PWCs (and the children in their custody) are to be protected financially at all costs for something that has not happened?

AnxiousMum wrote: »

When an NRP does decide to stop paying, most PWCs give some time for them to come good (I gave over a year, and he finally said 'I'm not paying a dime more') before going for enforcement. IF it is already with the enforcement agency, then the time can be shortened and the child is ALWAYS provided for.

So we are to assume that all NRPs will not pay at some point the future. Is innocent until proven guilty not applicable to NRPs?

AnxiousMum wrote: »

I find it interesting that you say 'who cares what happens to NRP's' - well, if the NRP does fulfill their financial obligation.....just what is going to happen to them? They only become unstuck (in majority of cases) where they stop paying and get dinged with a 40% of salary DEO to pay back arrears!

Post #25 tried to explain why it is unpleasant for an NRP to be monitored by the CSA. It always seems easy for people to understand why it would be unpleasant for PWCs to have to justify their expenditure of child support to the CSA yet difficult to appreciate why it is unpleasant for NRPs to have to justify their income to the CSA for child support.

AnxiousMum wrote: »

IF you intend to always help support your children - I honestly don't see the problem But situations change, and the child's needs should ALWAYS be protected.

Protected at all costs by assuming all NRPs are guilty for something that has not or may not ever happen. Incriminate all NRPs from the outset in case some have problems keeping to a private agreement. You don't see that as a problem?

AnxiousMum

Oh Redsky - you really should try sleeping at night!

You say people have a problem with the PWC being monitored? Anybody needing me to justify the money spent on supporting my children (anybody in authority that is) would be more than welcome to see it - they just may see that child support doesn't always cover an equal share of what must be spent on children!

I have never said I have a problem with it - yet, you seem to be taking my comments rather personally as I assume you don't like the concept of the CSA. Do you not feel that they are there to somewhat protect the needs of the child? Why is that a bad thing?

I know we only see the troubles caused by the CSA, but I'll bet that there's many NRP's out there as well who pay their CS and never have a problem with them.

RedSky

AnxiousMum wrote: »

Do you not feel that they are there to somewhat protect the needs of the child? Why is that a bad thing?

I appreciate what you are saying but I only see the CSA as there to assist, in the interest of the children, if parents cannot agree amongst themselves. If parents can maintain an agreement then all will benefit.

AnxiousMum wrote: »

I know we only see the troubles caused by the CSA, but I'll bet that there's many NRP's out there as well who pay their CS and never have a problem with them.

I don't doubt it, and I also don't doubt that NRPs are less likely to resent the CSA if they were given an opportunity to come to an agreement before the CSA were involved.

13Kent

We would rather use the CSA than a private agreement as there is no dispute about what is paid when, the PWC can't use it as a stick to beat us with saying she isn't getting enough, or needs extra for school uniforms, or tells the kids that they can't go to such and such a club because Daddy won't give them extra money buy the equipment needed.

Also she can't deny that she has received the payments and make us pay them again as arrears!!