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

CSAworkerx

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

Is it not just common sense that people would consider their financial situation and commitments before having children..?

The question i ask myself on a daily basis working here.

medsec_222

Marriages do unfortunately break down and children are often caught in between. My own feeling is that post separation the default should be 50/50 shared care by law, the parents to work out for themselves the best arrangements to suit them both and the children. With a full 50/50 shared care there should be no child maintenance to pay, although both parents should be responsible for school uniforms, school trips etc., such expenses to be met equally by both parents. With a less than 50% shared care, child maintenance should be paid to the parent who provides the most care.

When Courts and organisations such as the CSA step in and decide how best familes should manage their lives, however well intended that might be, the end result for parents and children invariablly seems to be worse.

Marisco

medsec_222 wrote: »

Marriages do unfortunately break down and children are often caught in between. My own feeling is that post separation the default should be 50/50 shared care by law, the parents to work out for themselves the best arrangements to suit them both and the children. With a full 50/50 shared care there should be no child maintenance to pay, although both parents should be responsible for school uniforms, school trips etc., such expenses to be met equally by both parents. With a less than 50% shared care, child maintenance should be paid to the parent who provides the most care.

When Courts and organisations such as the CSA step in and decide how best familes should manage their lives, however well intended that might be, the end result for parents and children invariablly seems to be worse.

Can I come and live in Utopia with you? I do agree with you though, that is what should happen, but when you have an ex like my oh had, it would have been impossible.

medsec_222

I know what you mean Marisco - my son does have a shared residence but not 50/50. He has been put through the wringer though over the last three years despite being a good dad. I really don't know how some women tick, as the children are caught in the crossfire however discreet you try to be.

CSAworkerx

realistically 50/50 shared care in law is not only impossible, but the damege would be astounding, Heroin addicts would get 50/50 shared care for example, crimminals, child abusers, Or just people who generally hate the child, which belive me is not uncommon, ive had nrps refuse to reference the child in there cases by name and simply refer to them as "it" these are people you dont want having shared care, while i do sympthize with nrps who do have 50/50 as i feel personally in those circumstances no assessment should exist.

medsec_222

The welfare of the child always comes first CSA, and in the case of child abusers and other such examples, the 50% would never be applied. Safeguards would always be incorporated into the law concerning the welfare of children, as is the case at present. Those who do not want to share the care of their children, perhaps for practical reasons, would not have to do so. The default would bt 50/50, leaving the parents to work out the best arrangement to suit them and their children, without State interference, in what is essentially a family matter. Many families do this already, without recourse to the Family Courts and all the financial and emotional trauma that this entails.

his_wife

when my ex and i split up, i got the grand total of £10 a wk for four children,,, and was told by the csa to take it or leave it, as ten pound was better than nothing,,, yes it is,,,but, if i only gave 10 a wk to support my children they would of starved!!

When i met my husband, as he was on csa 1, my wages were also taken into account so his payments to his ex went up to just short of £900 a month.

So my children had 10,, to live on, and his daughter was entitled to nearly 900 plus her mums wage, ctc, etc etc,,,, not very fair.

I know wages are relevant, to what you earn etc,,, but surely somewhere, there must be a cut off point. As obviously it doesnt affect benefits what you receive, yet because of this, my husbands ex, and my ex are both living quite happily in there little worlds, whilst we struggle like mad to survive!

Yes, my children are not my husbands responsibility, his responsibility should be to his first family, however, when my wages are taken into account, i should have a say.

mY EX, works full time, yet somehow manages to only claim part time on his wage slips, my exes partner works full time, so he can and will pay minimum amount to our children (his words not mine)

For this reason me and my husband chose not to have a child of our own.

jarhead66

I agree that there should be a limit as to how much maintenance should be paid, on my CSA form their is a line that says maintenance needed lets say £62, but once that amount is met the CSA state that we have decided that you can afford to pay more,so your weekly payments are £***? which means that if your wages have overtime on then you have to work the overtime every month from then because the CSA have decided I think that this is only on CSA1 letters, but I that this should be right across the board for all schemes, No doubt this will upset a few gold diggers, who think that the N.R.P. should not have a life, just my thought that's all!!!

his_wife

i totally get what u are saying jarhead, unfortunately there is no one size fits all, in this! we have had to work our back sides off for years, to keep our heads above water, i have contemplated walking away more than once! i know the system is there for a reason, but , if jane bloggs is on benefits, with four kids to a, b, c and d, she will get max benefits, and four lots of csa, providing the fathers are working! how is that fair!

I shall go and find something nice to read now, before i go off on a tangent lol

FBaby

The biggest unfairness in the benefit system is maintenance not being taken into consideration in benefit payment as it used to be. I know this was on the basis of nrp not paying but I evolve in a middle class environment with a number of single mum claiming benefits whilst receiving large maintenance for their children. Their lifestyle is one most families would dream of. A total waste of tax money.