The CSA keeps badgering me to go back to work, but work doesnt pay, suggestions pleas

anguk

Orville wrote: »

I understand totally where you are coming from. When people split for whatever reason all sorts of stuff gets hurled about. But to me the fact remains that the kids should never be used as a tool within a fight between the parents or by one parent trying to get back at another. Someone posted earlier about maintenance payments being linked to contact. I can think of no fairer way other then this to ensure everyone is happy. If the NRP does not pay, simple they don't see the kids. If the PWC will not let the NRP see the kids they should then be under no illusions that they will not get any money from the other party. That way everyone knows where they stand.

I have mixed feelings about maintenance payments being linked to contact. Yes it would clarify things regarding non-paying NRP or PWC causing contact problems but what about the many people who have kids but disappear and take no responsibility for them? Should they be absolved of all financial responsibility just because they choose not to see their children?

erdd2

One poster mentioned linking maintenance payments to contact......absolutely absurd, this paying to see your children view is one of the most damaging and ridiculous concepts between NRPs and PWC.

Whatever the gender, reason for split....paying for contact is a ridiculous concept!

Sidekick_2

anguk wrote: »

But they wouldn't need childcare because the girlfriend only works 2 days and tax credits top up their money, this is what enables the OP to stay at home.

The OP could, if he chose to, go out to work 5 days a week, the girlfriend could look after their toddler and no childcare costs would be incurred.

Or maybe he can volunteered his services to his ex for looking after the kids while she went out to work:eek:.

Watta_4Cup

I say contact linked with mainenance is a good thing. It stops PWCs keeping tyhe children out of the NRPs life for financial reasons.

Wouldnt you agree? anguk?

Transformer

If a parent chooses not to see kids then thats there choice but should still pay, in case where visiting is decided and say rp with no just cause says no, then surely they should have to simply explain to social services or family court.

Would only allow payment to stop via some formal route not on descision of one or either parent.

Hey we need and english judge judy, anyone watch her, put on your 'listening ears'

I mean some nrps moan at paying 5.00 a week!!!!!

gillypkk

regardless of whether the NRP sees the child they still need a roof over their head, food in their bellies and clothes on their backs.

as someone else said "children are not pay-per-view"

yes there should be consequences to the PWC witholding contact without good reason but not stopping payments from the NRP for support.

what if the PWC cannot afford the rent if its stopped? or the new trainers the child needs for PE? punnishing the kids for the parents behaviour.

anguk

Watta_4Cup wrote: »

I say contact linked with mainenance is a good thing. It stops PWCs keeping tyhe children out of the NRPs life for financial reasons.

Wouldnt you agree? anguk?

I would agree that it would stop PWC keeping the children out of the NRP's life for financial reasons.

And it would mean that non-paying NRPs wouldn't be allowed to see their kids. (so in the OP's case he wouldn't be allowed see his kids even if his ex was cooperative because he's not paying maintenance).

But it would also allow absent NRPs to get away with paying no maintenance if they didn't want to see their kids. Thus enabling them to create children but avoid taking any responsibility for them.

That can't be right surely?

Sidekick_2

orville wrote: »

it seems to me going by your posts above that you expect the nrp to pay to better your life aswell as the kids. I'm sorry but if you want a better life including cars and holidays etc, maybe you should work a bit more yourself so you can afford to..?. Oh and by the way i am a male pwc who works 2 jobs so i can take my child on holidays etc, any money i get from my ex does not goto better my lifestyle and nor do i expect it to.

:t:t:t:t:t

Transformer

I agree just saying in normal situations there should hopefully be no reason for refusing visits that cant be sorted out, genuine reasons social would come into play, probably why it would never come it due to the paperwork etc......

Light_Speed_Cruiser

anguk wrote: »

But it would also allow absent NRPs to get away with paying no maintenance if they didn't want to see their kids. Thus enabling them to create children but avoid taking any responsibility for them.

That can't be right surely?

The proposal by DWP is link maintenance to contact.

It doesnt change the current policy on absent parents who dont want contact.