Q&A with Work and Pensions Minister Maria Miller on child support changes

clearingout

I agree with mrsspendalot. No, it's not about individual cases, but there is an awful lot of collective similarities in posts you see on this site and other sites like it. The Green Paper presents, at best, an idealised approach to separation/divorce with couples able to put the needs of their children first. It's not realistic. Even in the majority of cases where things even out and improve over time, how many of us can hold our hands up and say the first thing we did was 'put the children first' when our relationships broke down?

Even if funding is available to Relate, Citizen's Advice, mediators etc. etc. to support couples in working out child maintenance (and I don't believe that for a minute - I've worked in the voluntary sector as a fundaiser for years, it would need millions every year, several workers in every town, to even begin to make it viable), what are you going to do when one half doesn't turn up to appointments? slap a penal notice on them? You can threaten my ex with prison and it doesn't register - the man hasn't paid tax in at least 5 years, he's not going to bother about this, is he?!!!!

there is a need to overhaul child maintenance ALONGSIDE of overhauling how we manage separation and divorce in the best interests of children from a legal perspective. This Green Paper is about cost-cutting. Nothing more.

And NRPs receiving tax credit? someone judging whether a PWC is a single parent as a result of their own doing and then denying them maintenance? The tax payer implications of all that are astromonical. Not realistic.

Rustic100

We should think of all issues with connectivity.

I was an NRP, who in 2004/2005 used the credit bubble to finance 6 Court cases to gain access to my daughter, (for no reason other than withholding contact was the one thing my former partner could upset me.)

Six years on! i am a new official PWC, but having my finacial stability, after slowly recovering from winning access, threatened by the CSA now wanting arrears, due to them misplacing my change of circumstance letter. (covered on other post)

My change

I think its time to LINK NRPs paying support to access to children (Unless NO violence or proven reason)

mrsspendalot

I don't think making children pay-per-view is the way to solve that one! Children need supporting financially regardless of the reasons why they don't see the other parent (choice, abandonment, PWC witholding contact etc)

I think that is for the courts to tighten up on and should be dealt with under tougher legislation. I agree though, it is appalling how some PWCs withold contact.

clearingout

Rustic100 wrote: »

My change

I think its time to LINK NRPs paying support to access to children (Unless NO violence or proven reason)

Ooooooohhhhhhh, can of worms and Pandora's Box now open!

At some level, I'm inclined to agree. At another, no, it's not workable. My ex has had shared care and more recently has walked away from seeing his children. He had no intention of supporting his children/he has no intention of supporting his children. There are plenty of NRPs who would make the choice not to see and therefore not support their children if this was the case - and that's plenty more children in poverty as a result. And of course, at the same time, plenty of children who would grow up knowing both parents as a direct result.

And the courts are choc full of people screaming violence (rightly and wrongly) and other abuse. This would only add to it, I think.

blimey40

What happens in cases that are very old, whereby the child is now mid to late twenties?

Will CSA really spend time trying still collect monies from the NRP's, even though these debts are the biggest liable debts accrued? Or will it maintain keeping relative good records on current cases?

Trent1974

Rustic100 wrote: »

I think its time to LINK NRPs paying support to access to children (Unless NO violence or proven reason)

Well done, about time. :beer:

Trent1974

clearingout wrote: »

And the courts are choc full of people screaming violence (rightly and wrongly) and other abuse. This would only add to it, I think.

I disagree, it will make PWCs think twice about becoming a PWC and expect a free meal ticket and if that doesnt work they bleat on about 'responsibilities'

The EU has linked rights with responsibility - so why not the UK?

Trent1974

hop25scotch wrote: »

Introduce an amnesty for unrecoverable NRP's to return to the workplace.

Thats a very interesting point but a safeguard would be needed in the application process so an off-grid NRP looking to return to tax-paid work via amnesty is not forced cinriminate himself or guaranteed immunity from prosecution.

Without it, the government cannot win, and will continue to hemorrhage revenue for many more years to come.

Proceed with caution.

Watta_4Cup

You hit the nail squarely on the head.

Britain has developed a dependency culture on state benefits at a rate that is unprecedented and not seen anywhere else on this earth!

You are so right, we have to rid the economy of the dead wood, scrap the entire benefits system and introduce an American style food stamps scheme. That’ll get those bone-idle layabouts off their fat rear-ends and get a job!

The CSA has achieved quite the opposite, it sends hard working Brits abroad, and encourages layabouts to sign on.

Other countries don’t a government handing out wads of cash to anyone who chooses to be a single mum, nor have a CSA. This attitude must be stamped out now! Other countries having no benefits or housing system leave it to family and to a lesser extent, friends and if none, they emigrate to a developed country such as the UK.

We hard working over-taxed Brits have been taken for mugs for too long.

Rant over!

Anothermum

Why is the PWCs ability to pay not also taken into consideration? I understand that in Australia the financial position of the PWC and NRP is taken into account, e.g. child needs £500 per month, PWC is a higher earner than the NRP so they are expected to contribute a higher percentage.

In the UK a bitter and highly paid PWC can take 'what they're entitled to' to enhance their living standards. Why should an NRP pay towards the PWCs utility bills when they are in the same positition as the PWC, i.e. they need a bedroom etc for the child? Food, clothing, school expenses etc should of course be shared.

Also, I have read the views of many on here and they seem to think it is the responsibility of the state and NRP (usually father) to pay for their child and living expenses - what happened to taking some responsibility for yourself?