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

Transformer

Deffo if pwc can prove visitation was offered, simple enough get contact centre etc....if ex keeps saying they wont let me see my kids, blah blah blah, and then if ex like mine at time did not show, well thats up to them, but they have to pay.

Light_Speed_Cruiser

anguk wrote: »

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.

I dont agree with any law that prevents contact between parent and child (violence excepted). Only dirt bags prevent contact.

gillypkk

Transformer wrote: »

Deffo if pwc can prove visitation was offered, simple enough get contact centre etc....if ex keeps saying they wont let me see my kids, blah blah blah, and then if ex like mine at time did not show, well thats up to them, but they have to pay.

you have met my ex then?:rotfl:

totally ignored the solicitors letters and my emails offering contact and what his proposals were but tells anyone and their grandmothers dog i wont let him see them! oh and he also totally forgets on of his kids even exists depending on when he met them (a girl obviously - he doesnt want them to know he was chatting them up while his pregnant wife was at home with his eldest child hahahaha)

Marisco

anguk wrote: »

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?

I think we're talking of PWC's who stop NRP's just out of sheer bloody mindedness. There are many NRP that don't get to see their kids, just because the NRP has left them. I'm not meaning those who were abusive or violent here, that's understandable, but normal bods, who left the PWC, and she* is bitter about it, wants to hurt him and uses the kids for that end! They are lower than a snakes belly, those are the ones whose justifications for that type of behaviour I'd like to hear from!!!:mad:

* I use "she" as the majority of PWC's are women, but I make no distinction between the sexes, both are equally as despicable if they use the kids as weapons.

Transformer

gillypkk wrote: »

you have met my ex then?:rotfl:

totally ignored the solicitors letters and my emails offering contact and what his proposals were but tells anyone and their grandmothers dog i wont let him see them! oh and he also totally forgets on of his kids even exists depending on when he met them (a girl obviously - he doesnt want them to know he was chatting them up while his pregnant wife was at home with his eldest child hahahaha)

:rotfl:

My ex told his new partner who I knew nowt about that he was not sleeping with me:eek: Uhm I was 9 months pregnant when he finally had her nagging him he might be lying, he then asked to come back to me saying he could always talk to me and be understood:eek:, but I had to say no due to social had only just took kids of watch to make sure I would not go back and to be honest as a charmer he was I was fed up of being a punch bag.

As said though he has grown up and I must admit I found myself pleased to see him, but it only takes one argument to be back to square one as some people should not be together as much as they may think they love each other at the time.;)

Orville

anguk wrote: »

I've stated several times that the ex is wrong to obstruct access, I also think it's wrong if she's using the kids as a cash cow.

The PWC may be very bitter and she also may have started this but that doesn't change the fact that a NRP should pay towards their children's upkeep. It doesn't matter who started what, who hates who, who is bitter etc, when you've got kids you have a responsibility to support them.

And if you are the PWC you have a responsibility to ensure the children have access to the NRP.

anguk

Light_Speed_Cruiser wrote: »

The proposal by DWP is link maintenance to contact.

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

Ah I see, thanks.

So a PWC would get the maintenance stopped if they obstructed contact between the kids & the NRP?

And NRPs who didn't pay wouldn't be allowed to see their kids?

I wonder what would happen in the OP's case? His ex is obstructing contact so she wouldn't get maintenance but the OP isn't paying any maintenance so he wouldn't be entitled to contact anyway? It's hurting my brain trying to work it out! :rotfl:

Part of me thinks maintenance linked contact is fair for the parents but another part of me thinks this could be unfair on the children. It seems to be more about parent's rights than the children's rights.

gillypkk

simply playing evils advocate here but

what if the PWC has said NRP isnt allowed to see the kids simply to find out if he really is bothered to see them to see if he will put in the effort and not simply say "sorry i cant see them this week something else has come up" and disappoint the kids and it happens that he hasnt been bothered to put in the effort by looking into enforcing the contact order?

whats to say the minute she got the solicitors letter saying he is seeking a court date to discuss the reason contact was witheld she wasnt planning on reinstating it?

Transformer

I did notice his request to come back was about same time as csa and benefits/social had been out to visit me!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Coincidence perhaps

Orville

anguk wrote: »

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?

Good point.

No of course not, you should always pay whatever, but if you are paying i think you should have the right to see your children.