Closed case help please

FBaby

What i am saying is that money is irrelevant...!!! You may think it is... What is being argued here is the fact that the OP is being slated for NOT supporting his child, but for all you know has been supporting extremely well for many many years and that will make no difference to any of you...!!! It is simply that why would you NOt want to support your child...!!! Not really fair without all the facts is it...???

To be fair Kevin, you do know things we don't and that will inevitably affect the discussion. If the OP had written that he wants to punish his ex because she cheated on her and doesn't care of it means that the kids are losing out, you might have seen it differently. it's easier to be angry when you are told of someone being 'victim' of a system.

Maybe the OP had a 'good' reason for his wanting to reduce his maintenance to nothing, beyond that he felt that he was paying too much at £500, but that doesn't take away the fact that the system allows nrps to pay nothing with no 'good' reasons at all.

kevin137

This is NOT a case about the OP reducing his his maintenance to nothing, it is about having a fair system that fits all.

As previously discussed, and i have been in the situation on CSA1 where i lived at a friends, paying minimal rent, and i was basically left working 60 hours a week as per my contract and after paying for my single room, i had exactly the same as what i would of had on benefits...

Why would i choose to work, my ex was on benefits and had no inclination to work at the time, so the government was taking it all... So i jacked my job, went travelling, and the case was closed... When i came back i was put onto the new system as it was a NEW case way back in 2004 this was, and it left me in a situation where i COULD afford to buy, was it a good move, well not really i could of afforded to move before that and reduce my liability to nothing, and stay within the system...

This is where the system is screwed, that if you don't have it, you pay more, if you do have it, you are a bad parent... WHy does it have to be that way...???

I have posted so many times on here about how the NRP is wrong, about how they should be paying... And no one can deny that...

What upsets me, is when an NRP is denied even the most basic of rights to that child, has to consistently pay an amount that is far more than anyone should be paying under the circumstances, and then gets battered for having the nerve to buy a home and move on with his life... God help him for cutting off his child that hasn't been seen for more than a decade...

And the nerve of a PWC to simply close the case to open again to obtain money for a child that has simply been denied any chance of a normal relationship because she can is even more sickening...!!! I understand for many PWC it is not this way, but you can bet this PWC will be fuming at having the claim remain open and not get her free money to take care of what will no doubt be HER CHILD and that the system is wrong and she is being made to suffer etc etc...

So let me ask, when IS it right to say enough is enough...??? As a parent you have a responsibility, i have never denied that, but if i was in that situation we would not be having this discussion, i would simply not be there to pay anything anyway...!!! This is not because i don't love or want to provide for a child that is my blood... But i will not be providing for a child that has been denied it's basic right to 2 parents and still pay...!!! Not under those circumstances NO WAY...!!!

@FBaby And just so you know, i don't see this as a thread about NRP's avoiding responsibility, i see this as 1 NRP who has paid probably a hell of a lot more than his fair share, and is now going to find himself back where he started with being told his income is going to go down as the result of the action of a PWC who is not getting what she wanted... A pay cheque...!!! It's about 1 person, and a forum that is meant for advice... And the advice was, reopen the case...!!! This reduces your legal obligation back to what it was... LEGAL not ILLEGAL and the discussion that has followed you would think this guy is a criminal who has never paid and did everything he could to get out os paying for years...

! simple question... Where is the objectivity...??? There isn't any on this subject due to the tensions that always exist between NRP and PWC... You are all hard done by... Yes we know that...

So if people want advice where do they go...??? Cos it certainly isn't here at the moment... Not for an NRP... And yes they have rights too...!!! The right to stay within the law and not bullied attacked and made to feel like !!!! because they simply asked a question... This is NOT a playground where you can just insult be rude and forget about it, it has long lasting effects on peoples well being, which is why people commit suicide over this !!!!...!!! And pretty much everyone that commented has been guilty of being that playground bully...!!! How dare he want to get out of his responsibilities, it's despicable...!!!

PreludeForTimeFeelers

Just to clarify, either an NRP or a PWC can open a case. The only person who can close a case is the applicant for that case (whether that was the NRP or the PWC). An NRP application can be superceded by a PWC application if there is one open.

This is how things are/were with CS2, I'm assuming the same applies to Old Rules. I'm not sure about the 13 week rule for changing between them, and whether an NRP application would indeed get around this.

I do find it funny that some people on here moan about being stuck on old rules while others would do everything in their power to stay on it.

galangm8

kevin137 wrote: »

This is NOT a case about the OP reducing his his maintenance to nothing, it is about having a fair system that fits all.

As previously discussed, and i have been in the situation on CSA1 where i lived at a friends, paying minimal rent, and i was basically left working 60 hours a week as per my contract and after paying for my single room, i had exactly the same as what i would of had on benefits...

Why would i choose to work, my ex was on benefits and had no inclination to work at the time, so the government was taking it all... So i jacked my job, went travelling, and the case was closed... When i came back i was put onto the new system as it was a NEW case way back in 2004 this was, and it left me in a situation where i COULD afford to buy, was it a good move, well not really i could of afforded to move before that and reduce my liability to nothing, and stay within the system...

This is where the system is screwed, that if you don't have it, you pay more, if you do have it, you are a bad parent... WHy does it have to be that way...???

I have posted so many times on here about how the NRP is wrong, about how they should be paying... And no one can deny that...

What upsets me, is when an NRP is denied even the most basic of rights to that child, has to consistently pay an amount that is far more than anyone should be paying under the circumstances, and then gets battered for having the nerve to buy a home and move on with his life... God help him for cutting off his child that hasn't been seen for more than a decade...

And the nerve of a PWC to simply close the case to open again to obtain money for a child that has simply been denied any chance of a normal relationship because she can is even more sickening...!!! I understand for many PWC it is not this way, but you can bet this PWC will be fuming at having the claim remain open and not get her free money to take care of what will no doubt be HER CHILD and that the system is wrong and she is being made to suffer etc etc...

So let me ask, when IS it right to say enough is enough...??? As a parent you have a responsibility, i have never denied that, but if i was in that situation we would not be having this discussion, i would simply not be there to pay anything anyway...!!! This is not because i don't love or want to provide for a child that is my blood... But i will not be providing for a child that has been denied it's basic right to 2 parents and still pay...!!! Not under those circumstances NO WAY...!!!

@FBaby And just so you know, i don't see this as a thread about NRP's avoiding responsibility, i see this as 1 NRP who has paid probably a hell of a lot more than his fair share, and is now going to find himself back where he started with being told his income is going to go down as the result of the action of a PWC who is not getting what she wanted... A pay cheque...!!! It's about 1 person, and a forum that is meant for advice... And the advice was, reopen the case...!!! This reduces your legal obligation back to what it was... LEGAL not ILLEGAL and the discussion that has followed you would think this guy is a criminal who has never paid and did everything he could to get out os paying for years...

! simple question... Where is the objectivity...??? There isn't any on this subject due to the tensions that always exist between NRP and PWC... You are all hard done by... Yes we know that...

So if people want advice where do they go...??? Cos it certainly isn't here at the moment... Not for an NRP... And yes they have rights too...!!! The right to stay within the law and not bullied attacked and made to feel like !!!! because they simply asked a question... This is NOT a playground where you can just insult be rude and forget about it, it has long lasting effects on peoples well being, which is why people commit suicide over this !!!!...!!! And pretty much everyone that commented has been guilty of being that playground bully...!!! How dare he want to get out of his responsibilities, it's despicable...!!!

I am very, very sorry if ANYONE is offended by my opinion/views and I am most certainly not bullying anyone.

I am a PWC on CSA1 and no maintenance paid in the past 6yrs and 6mths from someone who left the country to avoid, until the CSA GAVE me his correct address and soon everything will change.

FBaby

Kevin, if you read back my posts, I never made assumptions about the OP. What I did is question the system he was referring to. You got to know the circumstances of the OP, which no one got to, and as such started to defend the system based on his situation, when I (and I think the others) were arguing against that system, not the OP's decision.

As stated below, the OP might have good reasons to use the system to his favour, as others might BUT the system means that it can also be used by many others nrp who might NOT have such good reasons to avoid paying for their children despite being able to afford to do so if they didn't manipulate the system.

I totally agree with you that both systems can be manipulated by both parties, there is no doubt about it, the reason why I brought this up is that I think there should be limits by which the system can be used, so as much as there is a cap to how much a pwc could receive (even though it still leaves the argument that this cap should be lowered), there should be a cap by which nrps can suddenly pay nothing at all despite a decent income.

Where I think we would agree is that the system should have allowed from the start BOTH pwc AND nrp to be able to close a csa1 and reopen a csa2 case. I would totally agree that it is a failing of the system that didn't allow for this, but penalising the child for this failing by totally cutting out maintenance is something that as a responsible parent, I just can't comprehend.

As a pwc receiving no maintenance, I could very well decide to stop paying for my kids train fare to go and see their dad and tell him that he either pays or doesn't see his kids. However, for all I know, it might mean my kids not being to see him as often or maybe even not at all. I don't want my children to be punished, so I pay even though it greatly benefit their dad. But that's the point, I rather both their father and them benefiting, than both being penalised.

Cally_Smart

I thought from your stance on nrp's & nrpp that you had been having a hard time of getting what is rightfully yours ,the support for you & your children.Speaking as a nrpp myself( & seeing what the CSA has done to us !)I just want you to see that all we all want is a fair system! If the CSA are hell bent on saying what is law & legislation it is only fair that the 'rules'apply to us when applicable from our side !!It is one thing to give support to the QC's but we would like to offer that ourselves instead of the pwc alienating the children from us! It is not about not supporting the QC's its about a system that allows the pwc in our case to be believed but not us.Of course ,I knew that my husband had 4 children when I met him & all that would entail. Having been a single parent myself I would not have beeen interested in a man that walked away from his children.I welcomed them all into my home EVERY weekend & tried to be the best step mother I could be .I had a child from a previous relationship (as well as 2 grown up ones!)It was quite hard work cooking for everybody ,washing ,cleaning & organising but we did it with pleasure! It is only the last 2 years that we have had all this stress with the CSA ( see some of my old posts if you care to )My husband & myself are now in the position of losing nearly 30% of our income to the pwc who shouldn't even qualify for it now! I think you might be a bit angry about that(Remember ,we paid her every month & have proof of that !)We live a modest lifestyle we cant afford to drink,go out etc when all the bills/services are paid there is very little to buy food with.The child support consideration is not evident for the child in our family.How is this fair?For over 10 years his children have been the priority now they have to help themselves a bit like my daughter has had to (she's the same age!) I hope you can see it from my view.

Cally_Smart

Sorry, forgot to quote message.I was replying to galangm8 in my answer above.

Marisco

FBaby wrote: »

As a pwc receiving no maintenance, I could very well decide to stop paying for my kids train fare to go and see their dad and tell him that he either pays or doesn't see his kids. However, for all I know, it might mean my kids not being to see him as often or maybe even not at all. I don't want my children to be punished, so I pay even though it greatly benefit their dad. But that's the point, I rather both their father and them benefiting, than both being penalised.

Yes but you are doing it how it should be done, and putting your kids first. Some PWC's don't, and link access to money, they "blackmail" the NRP, so although it's not right, I can well understand why an NRP who is denied access for no good reason (domestic violence aside) ends up resentful and says "sod it"!

I can't for the life of me, understand why we don't adopt the system they have in Australia, and I believe, Canada (open to correction here) where maintenance is reduced or stopped if the PWC persists in denying the NRP access for no good reason. There is no need for it apart from spite!

The CSA should be disbanded and a completely new system put in place, incorporating the Australian system, they have had long enough to "iron out" the anomalies and they have done sod all about it, the system is letting everyone down, the PWC, NRP and more importantly, the kids!

galangm8

kevin137 wrote: »

Really...??? So what i say is total rubbish, so an NRP cannot open a case...???

You lot really do not know what the rules are do you...

EITHER parent can open a case... Only a PWC can close it... So if a case is closed by a PWC then as per the rules of teh CSA and there legislation if reopened, it activates the old case, and thus stays on the system that it was previously...

And as an NRP can open a case, then this would in fact be what would happen...

Or is it that the system now doesn't allow NRP's to open a case either...

There are so many jokers on here...!!!

I do love the comment about MAN UP and sell the house... and reduce the mortgage... So an NRP is also intended to make himself homeless as well now to satisfy the needs of a PWC...???

I really do think that there are many many angry delusional PWC's on this board that have NO idea about how it works in the real world... AN NRP has as many rights as a PWC, and this is the system that you all love so much, because it means the NRP will pay... No problems, no dealing with the NRP, just remove the children, remove the access and keep taking the money... Well that may work for a period, but in this case, it now doesn't... And it is the RIGHT of the OP to reopen the case wether you all like it or not... And if that means NIL assessed, then that is really the end of the story, no matter how many times you scream about it is wrong... Well if it is wrong, then the government has screwed over the PWC not the OP, in fact it has just turned the tables... How many times have we seen PWC receiving stupid amounts of maintenance, leaving the NRP with less money than benefit, and when they turn the tables it is all wrong...

Morally i think you all need to look at just how many people killed themselves because of this system... most of the NRP's... And now, the system is working the other way, oh you are all so hard done by aren't you...

Read back through the thread... Did i say he shouldn't pay, i don't think i did, i think i said he had a moral obligation, just like the mother has a moral obligation to allow access... But i know that this case hasn't had that, access denied for over a decade, while still taking in excess of £500 a month on CSA1... And you think the OP is playing the system...???

Really...???

I hope the PWC in this case reads the board, and actually sees that her time may have come to an end getting a free ride of ridiculous amounts of child support and the LAW is now protecting the NRP...

Kevin

Having now had time to read through your posts of yesterday, I must say you cannot accuse adult posters on this adult website of being playground bullies, all because we do not agree with the OP's stance and morals toward his own flesh and blood ~ and you do.

If you were referring to me as being one of the angry, delusional PWCs', who does not know the CSA rules and regs and that I am a joker, well you are wrong and you're changing the question re: the 13 week closure of a case, to suit your argument.

My NRP paid 'over the odds' as you call it, for many years, a lot more than £500pm and then left the UK, like you and then ZERO - CM no longer in force.

For the last 6 years I have had no 'regular' maintenance from him, but you're saying that is OK as he paid 'over the odds' for them first years.

The system has not just started defending the NRP now as you say, the rules on CSA1 (old rules) have and are the same even right back then...my NRP sold his lovely mortgage free house and took out a very high mortgage on the DAY his child was being brought into this world.

Do you think that was just a coincidence?

Do you know how many times I've felt like jumping from a cliff top, being a strong independent women, great job, 2 yes 2 houses bought and paid for, my child grown up and holidays in the caribbean and then being left with a brand new baby to love, cherish and care for 24/7 solely?

The least he can do is pay and keep me within my means...I might not have been able to confirm his 'pillow talk' but I certainly knew of his status in life before I agreed to have our baby he longed for.

I have many, many years of experience dealing with the CSA and I have fought and won and shall continue to fight til my dying day for my sons' entitlement and now my married daughters also (they're investigating both NRP's now back to 2000) because I am 'their' parent and that's what a real parent does.

I am very interested in your LO Kevin, you know on the property you sold before you 'left' the UK....that is exactly what they are doing right now to my NRP, getting a LO on the property he 'sold' before he flitted the UK, especially as I had a Departure in the CSA's mits for EIGHTEEN months regarding this and they never done anything about it....but now they say they can.....so it's all going to plan

kevin137

galangm8 wrote: »

I have many, many years of experience dealing with the CSA and I have fought and won and shall continue to fight til my dying day for my sons' entitlement and now my married daughters also (they're investigating both NRP's now back to 2000) because I am 'their' parent and that's what a real parent does.

I am very interested in your LO Kevin, you know on the property you sold before you 'left' the UK....that is exactly what they are doing right now to my NRP, getting a LO on the property he 'sold' before he flitted the UK, especially as I had a Departure in the CSA's mits for EIGHTEEN months regarding this and they never done anything about it....but now they say they can.....so it's all going to plan

I'm glad you are interested,there will not be an LO when court has finished, and they truly cannot put a charge on a property that is not owned, so what are they going to do...??? And with the previous county court ruling with DEBT SETTLED they couldn't even state i owed the money anyway, but that is besides the point... The system is the system, and we fight within it... Using the same rules as everyone else... When my son was born, and i was kicked out of the house when he was 6 weeks old, and denied access and humiliated, and made to attend court over 30 times to end up with 2 hours supervised access a fortnight because i was reported as being a "violent" man, simply to achieve the resulting denial of access. Well yes i will fight back in every way...!!! I have a great relationship with my son, i know more about him and his struggles than his mother does as we actually talk... So the real winner wasn't her, she is just biter and twisted...!!!

I am sorry you are having to fight for anything, and over the odds is what you would have to pay being kept on CSA1 when CSA2 was designed as a fairer system...!!! And as i have already said, the same system that people where FORCED to use, is now showing to be a hindrance to many... And because it suits them they want to change... Your case is different... Much like myself, he moved out of the country it seems... I did NOT do this, i lived in Norway with my g/f spent all my time off, days off etc here, and the CSA accepted my address as my home... However, i still paid, because i worked in the UK, so i was never at issue with that, what i was at issue with, was the amount they where taking... It was WRONG... Never a correct assessment, never an acceptance for change of circumstances... Which is why i fight... I have another pet gripe with the CSA as well, which i never bothered arguing about, but it used to wind me up... The CSA accept i lived in Norway, my G/F has 2 children, as such the children live with me, at my home in Norway... But they where never accepted as qualifying children... Why we live in the EEA the same rights as the EU you would think, no, they must live with you in the UK... Really, so i can live here and pay there, but the same qualifiers don't apply...

The CSA is a messed up system, but this place is for advice...!!! And the OP was advised as to what the legality of it is... Maybe that brings up old wounds for you, maybe it makes you feel bad... But he hasn't left the country like your ex, he hasn't upped his mortgage like your husband, he simply asked what he could do...???

So in answer to you all about the bullying, anything that is hurtful can cause ill feeling, anxiety or any other thing you can come up with... Which pretty much everyone HAS, then YES it is bullying... Telling the man how wrong he is and all the rest of it, you don't know what he suffers from if anything, you don't know what anxiety or similar he may stress out from, and this is a prime example of what bullying is.. His question was not liked, HOW DARE HE...!!!