Confused . . CSA / CMEC / CMS . . . who actually sorts maintenance now ?

DAREDEVIL78

Hi , after earlier posts regards csa info , i am a little confused , when i have had dealings with the csa in the past it was called the csa and i was on the csa 1 system.

My Questions are -

1. what is csa 2 ?

2. why have i heard of cmec ( a supposed superior to csa ? ), then when i try to find some info on the governments website it says cmec is to be replaced with cms ?

3. lastly , if i had a case opened against me which organisation/system would i be placed under (csa/cmec/cms ?) bearing in mind i have been under the csa (on csa 1)but the case was closed 12+ months ago !

thanks members for any replies.:money:

DUTR

Basically CMEC work in conjunction with the CSA, 1st port of call is for the parents to sort it out themselves.
If not then a case can be opened using the csa to collect on behalf of the PWC (there may now be a charge for both parties to use the service).
CSA 1 was introduced before 1993 and a complicated calculation was used which essentially stripped the NRP of all but essential income (hence why so many packed in work or worse) after 1993 CSA 2 was % based upon net income, this worked out fairer for many, CSA3 apparently is calculated on Gross income, so pension loopholes no longer work (as may not self employed?) .
As for your case being closed and then opened as a new case, then it would be under the current scheme in process eg csa2 or 3 if it is in force.

DAREDEVIL78

thanks , just a bit more info , when you say ''first port of call is to deal direct with pwc'' , my problem is that i do pay voluntarily a figure that flexes, i give a reasonable/affordable figure to my circumstances, when its time for school term clothing i give half , examples like these are what i offer.

Unfortunately, this is where i think the pwc with care can use the csa like a weapon to gain more money 'as and when' , if pwc thinks they will get more money by going to csa then if it works it suits but if it is deemed actually what i pay voluntarily is correct or actually more than i would pay via csa then pwc all of a sudden accepts to accept my volunteered contribution..... so why go , like i said it is like a weapon for pwc's benefit.

as the nrp , surely i deserve some stability of knowing how i am going to pay rather than the pwc having me jumping through hoops to provide all the info needed by csa at intervals decided by pwc when she feels the need to try csa say every 3/6/9/12 etc months.

seems unfair and definitely one sided , especially when in my case the relationship failure was caused by domestic violence from pwc to myself , very unfair , i have a duty to contribute to my childs upbringing but feel tarred with same brush as reckless nrp's who dont give a monkeys !

DUTR

DAREDEVIL78 wrote: »

thanks , just a bit more info , when you say ''first port of call is to deal direct with pwc'' , my problem is that i do pay voluntarily a figure that flexes, i give a reasonable/affordable figure to my circumstances, when its time for school term clothing i give half , examples like these are what i offer.

Unfortunately, this is where i think the pwc with care can use the csa like a weapon to gain more money 'as and when' , if pwc thinks they will get more money by going to csa then if it works it suits but if it is deemed actually what i pay voluntarily is correct or actually more than i would pay via csa then pwc all of a sudden accepts to accept my volunteered contribution..... so why go , like i said it is like a weapon for pwc's benefit.

as the nrp , surely i deserve some stability of knowing how i am going to pay rather than the pwc having me jumping through hoops to provide all the info needed by csa at intervals decided by pwc when she feels the need to try csa say every 3/6/9/12 etc months.

seems unfair and definitely one sided , especially when in my case the relationship failure was caused by domestic violence from pwc to myself , very unfair , i have a duty to contribute to my childs upbringing but feel tarred with same brush as reckless nrp's who dont give a monkeys !

As mentioned in another post/thread, the % scheme is fine for some, you are a newish poster so let me quickly brief you on my scenario.
When I used to be in contact with the Mum and daughter, I didn't contribute anything directly, I paid for after school club riding lessons and other bits n bobs, this was 6 years ago and on top of the 3 or 4 60 odd mile round trips per week, even with petrol half the price it is today I was spending well over £100 a week (no probs) but then the Mum used to hint at some cash CS, but I used to say no, deal via the CSA, over a time of none visits the brown envelope arrived and I now pay via the csa and have done for years, this figure is much less than what I was spending and with 6k miles per annum saved enabled me to clear my mortgage and other bills. recently the Mum has been in touch and we have met up a few times, but every now and then there is talk of this n that required but I tactfully remind that I contribute as I should, the CSA is certainly no beating stick, I only have a few more years to go but tbh the monies is nowt now, I know it would have been worse with a private arrangement as whatever I contributed would never be enough

DAREDEVIL78

thanks dutr :money:

i completely agree and understand your advice , 100% !

my situation is similar but i did pay through csa initially from my child being the age of 1 and i remained with the csa until she was 11 .

The change came when my ex asked the csa for them to be no longer involved and the first i was aware of this change was when i received a letter confirming/stating this .

what could i have done at this point ? . . . being responsible i offered payment direct to pwc and this has been satisfactory for over a year.

but now i have csa wanting all my details over again so should i, at the point of been told csa are no longer involved, have said to the csa NO and asked them to still make payment via them regardless ??

but i do agree with you that the clarity the csa organised payments brings was certainly beneficial to you and was to myself but i did not ask my ex to stop using the csa . . . so why did she ? . . . did she know something i do not yet know ?

is there an ulterior motive. . . did she do it with the intention that she knew i would be placed under csa 2 or 3 which might turn out to be more successful to her than csa 1 ??

DUTR

DAREDEVIL78 wrote: »

thanks dutr :money:

i completely agree and understand your advice , 100% !

my situation is similar but i did pay through csa initially from my child being the age of 1 and i remained with the csa until she was 11 .

The change came when my ex asked the csa for them to be no longer involved and the first i was aware of this change was when i received a letter confirming/stating this .

what could i have done at this point ? . . . being responsible i offered payment direct to pwc and this has been satisfactory for over a year.

but now i have csa wanting all my details over again so should i, at the point of been told csa are no longer involved, have said to the csa NO and asked them to still make payment via them regardless ??

but i do agree with you that the clarity the csa organised payments brings was certainly beneficial to you and was to myself but i did not ask my ex to stop using the csa . . . so why did she ? . . . did she know something i do not yet know ?

is there an ulterior motive. . . did she do it with the intention that she knew i would be placed under csa 2 or 3 which might turn out to be more successful to her than csa 1 ??

If you ever figure women out let me know
Sometimes there maybe an ulterior motive , sometimes not, when I meet up with my daughters Mum, I do ask her sometimes how come she sent in the claim (I never get an answer) but sometimes she asks how come I requested a paternity test ( I did answer as it it my choice to) . people react differently so it's not one size fits all.

Perhaps the % scheme may allow more contribution, but that may not be the motive, some guys pay and want to view , so there is a motive too.
Only your child's Mum may know why a new case was requested :idea:

DAREDEVIL78

the form is in my possession now , as you stumbled on paternity what would you advicse to the following situation ?

When i was first contacted by the csa for maintenance in 2001 was young , i was on the childs birth certificate and felt/assumed i was the biological father, i filled in the forms and started paying for the next 10 years.

throughout these years and growing maturity i began to wonder why did i never choose to seek paternity confirmation at the early point of csa application as i could have . . . naive i guess !

thing is i now have the chance to dispute parentage with the new application made by my ex . . . the confirmation would be a great load of my mind, i understand if i dispute and the child turns out to be mine then i have to pay for this dna test.

surely this should be done mandatory by the csa to avoid massive wrongfully claimed parentage by pwc.

i understand the csa accept parentage based on the fact that i put my name on the childs birth certificate but surely the csa must reallistically understand that a father would want to do this even if they were blissfully unaware that they are not the biological father . . surely this isnt grounds for a poormans version of dna test.

initial compulsory dna testing surely is needed to avoid uncertainty ??

Cally_Smart

I was thinking if daughter was nearly 19 & coming to the end of college education the pwc could close the case and wait 13 weeks then reopen it to get the run on to age 20.Rules from 10/12/12.What she would lose by closing for those weeks might turn out in her favour if it was generous CM- but your daughter is younger so I cant think why she would do this.
Aslo I've read of cases when a nrp has paid for many years thinking they were the father but when it was proven they weren't didn't get anything back as it was assumed parentage...by paying the CSA !

DUTR

DAREDEVIL78 wrote: »

the form is in my possession now , as you stumbled on paternity what would you advicse to the following situation ?

When i was first contacted by the csa for maintenance in 2001 was young , i was on the childs birth certificate and felt/assumed i was the biological father, i filled in the forms and started paying for the next 10 years.

throughout these years and growing maturity i began to wonder why did i never choose to seek paternity confirmation at the early point of csa application as i could have . . . naive i guess !

thing is i now have the chance to dispute parentage with the new application made by my ex . . . the confirmation would be a great load of my mind, i understand if i dispute and the child turns out to be mine then i have to pay for this dna test.

surely this should be done mandatory by the csa to avoid massive wrongfully claimed parentage by pwc.

i understand the csa accept parentage based on the fact that i put my name on the childs birth certificate but surely the csa must reallistically understand that a father would want to do this even if they were blissfully unaware that they are not the biological father . . surely this isnt grounds for a poormans version of dna test.

initial compulsory dna testing surely is needed to avoid uncertainty ??

Being on the BC means they can assume paternity, only a court order now would rule for a paternity test.

DUTR

Cally_Smart wrote: »

I was thinking if daughter was nearly 19 & coming to the end of college education the pwc could close the case and wait 13 weeks then reopen it to get the run on to age 20.Rules from 10/12/12.What she would lose by closing for those weeks might turn out in her favour if it was generous CM- but your daughter is younger so I cant think why she would do this.
Aslo I've read of cases when a nrp has paid for many years thinking they were the father but when it was proven they weren't didn't get anything back as it was assumed parentage...by paying the CSA !

Not so, there was a thread on here some time back, can't remember the author Mojo or something along those lines, after many years of paying csa the child turned out not to be his and was refunded in full.

DAREDEVIL78

exactly ' cally smart '

i think you are correct . . just by paying the csa is a reason for the csa to accept that i have accepted parentage .

sheer madness . . a compulsory paternity test initially would work wonders . . i know the csa would say we couldnt afford to dna test every case but surely it would save mega money in the longrun.


how many nrp's pay csa and are blissfully unaware they are not the biological father just because they might be too entrusting to a wife/girlfriend who might , in the back of their mind , be thinking , '' you are not the father/or not sure '' but using the power of silence as a weapon.

dna testing in csa cases should be mandatory ! end of !