CSA ....an (absent) and bitter Dads point of view

debndot

mania112 wrote: »

Do you think matters would improve if the RULE was that a NRP (who wasn't a criminal or untrustworthy) would ONLY pay CSA if the PWC allowed access to the child(ren) AND
a NRP had to pay an extra penalty if he/she refused to care for the child(ren).

This would

1) Reduce the number of NRPs who couldn't afford the money or stress involved with gaining access through the court.

2) Reduce the likelihood a bitter PWC refusing a NRP access.

3) Improve the likelihood the child(ren) would continue their relationship with NRP.

It's bribery, but it's a solid strategy![/

Makes sense, would stop a lot of suffering on many sides!

Jamopy

mania112 wrote: »

Do you think matters would improve if the RULE was that a NRP (who wasn't a criminal or untrustworthy) would ONLY pay CSA if the PWC allowed access to the child(ren) AND
a NRP had to pay an extra penalty if he/she refused to care for the child(ren).

This would

1) Reduce the number of NRPs who couldn't afford the money or stress involved with gaining access through the court.

2) Reduce the likelihood a bitter PWC refusing a NRP access.

3) Improve the likelihood the child(ren) would continue their relationship with NRP.

It's bribery, but it's a solid strategy!

Awesome idea. I think the reason the CSA get such bad press is because it's so obviously partisan.

medsec_222

And they don't seem to have worked out that when there is a court ordered shared residence in place, this means that both parents have to feed and clothe their children and both parents have to put a roof over their children's head. By virtue of a shared residence order, each parent more or less has the same outgoings in respect of providing for their children. The only difference seems to be that fathers provide for their children when they are residing with their mother, in addition.