csa and employers??

ohdamnit

Don't expect any sympathy from the PWCs on here regarding access minxtress you won't get it I am afraid. It's often a one way street, as stated the courts can enforce access on a mother, but if they either have good solicitors or know how to play the system, then getting enforcement is very unlikely.

However I don't also agree with your other half not paying them money, unfortunately for you in some ways the CSA will enforce what you owe, and the courts don't/won't enforce access for any fathers. I am afraid that when it comes down to it, the CSA is an organisation setup to recover money which is significantly more important to the government than ensuring fair access to children. Keep paying the money and pay back the arrears that is the right thing to do, it is not pay-per-view (although many people seem to take this to the extreme in the other direction). We all know stories of PWCs who claim they have had no money from NRP when they have been receiving it in cash, and in fact it has been encouraged on this forum before.

For those smartarses who just say keeping going to court, the PWC knows that this is impossible due to the amount of time (yes you do have to take time off work) and costs required, especially if PWC has access to cheap/free good advice. You try arguing with a solicitor in court, who knows every twist/turn, and is best buddies with the judge you are on a hiding to nothing.

Good luck minxtress with the courts, but don't expect them to resolve anything anytime soon, the PWC will keep on playing the game as she knows it is a way to hurt. As long as your friend continues doing the right thing, then you have taken the correct moral stance, and her kids will grow up knowing it was a game for their mother where they were pawns.

SingleSue

A bit of a broad brush there ohdamnit, not all PWC's are contact (the same that not all NRP's try to get out of supporting their children) ...some of us are actively trying to get our NRP's to actually have contact with their children!

I for one, cannot understand why a parent would block another parent from seeing their children (unless of course there has been violence from that parent ,even then supervised contact could be suitable), contact with both parents is vital for a child to get a feeling of who they are, to have balance in their lives.

I would dearly love for my ex husband to have a decent relationship with his children but he prefers to follow his own route and has lost his own children's respect for his actions....there is only so much defending him I can do especially now they are growing up and have found out for themselves when they have tried to contact him.

ohdamnit

SingleSue wrote: »

A bit of a broad brush there ohdamnit, not all PWC's are contact (the same that not all NRP's try to get out of supporting their children) ...some of us are actively trying to get our NRP's to actually have contact with their children!

I for one, cannot understand why a parent would block another parent from seeing their children (unless of course there has been violence from that parent ,even then supervised contact could be suitable), contact with both parents is vital for a child to get a feeling of who they are, to have balance in their lives.

I would dearly love for my ex husband to have a decent relationship with his children but he prefers to follow his own route and has lost his own children's respect for his actions....there is only so much defending him I can do especially now they are growing up and have found out for themselves when they have tried to contact him.

Sorry if I wasnt clear, my point wasn't that all PWC are !!!!!es, nor are all NRPs lovely people .

The point was that if it comes to a court battle with a PWC, especially those getting free/cheap representation, or who know how to play the game, chances are you are on a hiding to nothing unless you have money to spend. The court system is harder to fight than the CSA system, where enforcement is easier for a variety of reasons.

It is somewhat true that sympathy for NRPs is probably low here, possibly due to the number of NRP numpties and bad experiences (such as yours).

This is why I suggested to OP that they pay CSA, fight as much as they can, and let their children work out who has been unreasonable.

Blitz01

clearingout wrote: »

so £300 a month down to £20 a month and you think the children won't suffer? Is this not abuse too? I don't agree with children not being able to see their NRP on a regular basis (and I am all for enforcement where absent NRPs choose not to see their children in favour of their new families, frankly) but stopping or seriously reducing money just because you can is just as bad. Two wrongs quite clearly don't make a right. And basically, you're giving mum the ammunition to say to daughters 'well, you can't go dancing/swimming/acting...anymore because your dad has stopped paying'.

Sorry but that is a typical mis-guided comment!
Who is to say the mother isn't ewarning £100K a year.

This fella that has posted is suffering because he cannot even afford to live, and has been completely stiffed by his ex-wife.

How can you stand on your moral high ground when you know SOD ALL about the situation.

clearingout

I think it's a fair point, personally (but I made it, so I would!). Mum may well be earning £100k a year but that doesn't take away dad's responsiblity to support his children, does it? And regardless of how much mum earns, she can still say 'well, you can't go to dancing anymore because your dad's not paying what he should', can't she? If she's that twisted about it all (and it sounds like she is), she's not going to give a monkeys about the children going without (they've apparently gone without dad for many years).

The other point to make is that even if mum is earning a very good wage, and living with a new man who also earns a very good wage, you, as an NRP, have no idea whatsoever about their standard of living, financial commitments etc. Most of us live within our means. We manage, we get a payrise, suddenly we spend all of that every month as well. No, they don't have to drive around in the latest car, but many people do and take on the finance that goes with it and if having that car means the kids don't go to dancing, some people WILL make that choice. Doesn't make it right, but nor does it make it child abuse to the point of taking your children away from you.

As outsiders, we know very little of EITHER side's situation here. What I'm trying to point out is what mum could come back with if he doesn't pay. It's not an indicator of how I feel about the OP's friend and him not paying maintenance. I do, 100% wholeheartedly understand that child maintenance can make the difference for some people between living in dire poverty and just surviving. And there are many PWC in the same situation.

minxtress

Blitz01 wrote: »

Sorry but that is a typical mis-guided comment!
Who is to say the mother isn't ewarning £100K a year.

This fella that has posted is suffering because he cannot even afford to live, and has been completely stiffed by his ex-wife.

How can you stand on your moral high ground when you know SOD ALL about the situation.

Here Here!!!

speedster

Blitz01 wrote: »

Sorry but that is a typical mis-guided comment!
Who is to say the mother isn't ewarning £100K a year.

This fella that has posted is suffering because he cannot even afford to live, and has been completely stiffed by his ex-wife.

How can you stand on your moral high ground when you know SOD ALL about the situation.

ditto that.

but then again, what else do you expect from the wimmin on here.

blinkered, biased and damnright pathetic postings are part of the norm around here.

thankfully there are better places to get advice than this coven.....;)

speedster

clearingout wrote: »

so £300 a month down to £20 a month and you think the children won't suffer? Is this not abuse too? I don't agree with children not being able to see their NRP on a regular basis (and I am all for enforcement where absent NRPs choose not to see their children in favour of their new families, frankly) but stopping or seriously reducing money just because you can is just as bad. Two wrongs quite clearly don't make a right. And basically, you're giving mum the ammunition to say to daughters 'well, you can't go dancing/swimming/acting...anymore because your dad has stopped paying'.

new number 1 for total tosh.

explain how the Aussie system has a far higher compliance rate than our pwc biased crap, yet contact blocking PWC have their money stopped completely????

that's proof enough to me that is the way forward. if there are no welfare issues etc and these "wimmin" block contact out of spite, then they should get FOOK ALL.

it is now LEGALLY recognised that contact blocking is a form of DV, and when this poxy government eventually wake up and follow the aussies then childrens welfare instead of the PWC's greed and revenge tactics will be put first.

and Minxtress, i'm sending you a link via PM of somewhere to go to get PROPER advice, instead of having to plough through the pages of sh1te posted here by the militant dungaree brigade.....

SingleSue

Oh speedster you just gave me a right giggle....the thought of me wearing dungarees! I have neither the bum or legs for them...:rotfl:

I actually thought my post was quite balanced and not at all against NRP's..in fact, it was pretty against contact blocking PWC's.

FTR I have never blocked contact, have never called upon the CSA, I don't hassle my ex husband for an increase (it has stayed the same since he started contributing) because I believe it is better to keep all routes of contact open plus he is only in a minimum wage job and is finding it tough financially and every single penny that we (as in me and the boys) receive in maintenance in spent directly on the children...no posh holidays, cars and nights out here!

speedster

you're ok, i wasn't aiming it at you.

honestly though. some of the drivel i read on here is just unbelievable.

blinkered, dried up, man hating, dungaree wearing feminists who have naff all better to do with their lives than hang round these boards peddling their sh1te.