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

SingleSue

kaya wrote: »

If the courts started to grant custody to fathers as keenly as they do to mums this thread would have a different slant entirely, maintenance is predominantly paid to women by men who seem to think its their god given right to make the ex husband suffer financial hardship until the kids leave education , not exactly an even or fair field of play is it?

In my case, there was no question of who has custody, he didn't want them and expected me to have them.

Currently, he sees them for a maximum of 3 hours per year....his choice.

SingleSue

FBaby wrote: »

It was never implied that all do, but the issue is that some do, and these some shouldn't be able to claim all the child related benefit they get when they already receive so much to support your children. One mum I know ends up with higher net income than someone earning £50k, however, no question of her having her CB touched. The system is unbelievable...

I know it was not implied but I thought it would be nice to add a little balance...oh and I quite agree re the ones who receive very large amounts.

Csa_Survivor

FBaby wrote: »

You mean by insuring the nrp contributes the 15/20/25% recommended? That's the only control they have over their ex's finances...

That's funny, perhaps I was only dreaming several years ago then, when I seem to recall spending 4-5k to gain access to my own child purely and simply because the mum selfishly and self interestedly wanted our youngster all to herself! If that wasn't my ex having a kind of control over my finances then I dont know what is! I hope you can see my point!

jacklink

im not even going to read all of this because i got the gist of the post from the poster, i agree with him, can you imagine the uproar if the shoe was on the other foot ?

the law regarding csa and children ect has deliberately been made unfair and bias so one always has to fight for justice, funny that they choose the (so called) higher earner,

there is a lot of money to be made through the courts ect, solicitors, judges, barrister ect make a fortune out of emotions, they take people to as far as they can go financially and then support stops, making lots in the meanwhile.

dont fool yourself into thinking its about children, its about money, end of

Csa_Survivor

jacklink wrote: »

im not even going to read all of this because i got the gist of the post from the poster, i agree with him, can you imagine the uproar if the shoe was on the other foot ?

the law regarding csa and children ect has deliberately been made unfair and bias so one always has to fight for justice, funny that they choose the (so called) higher earner,

there is a lot of money to be made through the courts ect, solicitors, judges, barrister ect make a fortune out of emotions, they take people to as far as they can go financially and then support stops, making lots in the meanwhile.

dont fool yourself into thinking its about children, its about money, end of

Well said jacklink, if government was that bothered about children then NRP'S would automatically be allowed some kind of automatic access and there would be harsh punishment for the PWC denying access and making things difficult.
How can it be logical that a parent that has seen his child grow up without issue, has to fight their way through court, be made to feel like they are some kind of criminal and spend thousands in the process? And, on top of that, the really troubling thing is the PWC, that lets face it is usually the woman, can then allow some Scrot to move in with them, the very next day if they wish, without absolutely any checks or anything whatsoever!. That is what makes the whole thing disgusting!
I am only guessing, but I would say there are probably only a very very tiny minority of biological fathers that need some kind of restricted access, or in extreme cases perhaps none at all, logic says it should be the so called "step dads" that should have to jump through all the hoops. Sorry if my comments upset anyone but lets be honest here, how many times do you switch the telly on and it is usually the "step dad" involved in all these tragedies of murder or neglect?
I personally would love to know if some kind of study has been done showing how quick a newly qualified PWC, if you like, gets with a new partner and then moves them in, probably not having proper time to know enough about them, makes you wonder doesn't it!

medsec_222

Csa_Survivor wrote: »

That's funny, perhaps I was only dreaming several years ago then, when I seem to recall spending 4-5k to gain access to my own child purely and simply because the mum selfishly and self interestedly wanted our youngster all to herself! If that wasn't my ex having a kind of control over my finances then I dont know what is! I hope you can see my point!

My son had the same 'dream' Csa survivor. He has been through the family courts twice thanks to his ex. wife. Fortunately he has a shared residence order but is still paying solicitors fees, as well as CSA and arrears he knew nothing about. Most dads willingly pay for their children, as most dads love their children dearly, but the system does put to much power in the hands on one parent over the other and should be evened out. Even the expression always used, 'parent-with-care', is a misnomer, as it assumes quite wrongly, that only one person has the care of their children.

Csa_Survivor

medsec_222 wrote: »

My son had the same 'dream' Csa survivor. He has been through the family courts twice thanks to his ex. wife. Fortunately he has a shared residence order but is still paying solicitors fees, as well as CSA and arrears he knew nothing about. Most dads willingly pay for their children, as most dads love their children dearly, but the system does put to much power in the hands on one parent over the other and should be evened out. Even the expression always used, 'parent-with-care', is a misnomer, as it assumes quite wrongly, that only one person has the care of their children.

Thanks for your support there medec 222, I agree with you and would say most dads do willingly pay for their kids, myself included. From reading these forums over the years and listening to blokes down the pub you can well understand why many try to avoid it though! Lets just forget the "child support and access are completely two different things" nonsense that the CSA apologists carry on bleating on and on and on about, and lets look at the situation in a realistic way:
The fact is, whether anyone likes this or not , it is human nature that if you are paying for something, ie the child, then you expect something, ie access, in return, simple as that! Until cold hard facts like this are recognised there are always going to be problems with NRP;s doing their utmost to pay as little as possible for their kids, on the whole it is as simple as that! But, as it has been touched on a post or two ago on this thread, government is obviously only bothered about letting the misery go on, and the ££££££££ carrying on rolling into the legal system.

FBaby

Ha ha, funny how one sided this discussion is. Right next to this is a nrp asking about becoming self-employed, with other nrps saying that it is ok if he suddenly pays nothing in maintenance, the pwc will just have to 'persevere'... that of course is not controlling the pwc finances at all when she is left having to make up the difference...

medsec_222

My own feeling is that once a court ordered shared residence in place, the CSA have no business whatsoever, in tellilng one parent what he/she owes the other. The nature of a shared cared order already means that both parents are sharing the care of their children. It should be left entirely to the parents at this point to discuss between themselves how extras such as school holidays, school uniforms etc. should be paid for. Dads who have been through the Courts to obtain shared residence of their children have already proved their commitment to their children.

his_wife

the problem with shared care, is that, unfortunately, only one parent can claim cb, which then rakes up a whole new ball game, as that then deems,that parent to be the main carer!

In an ideal world, you would be correct medsec, however, it is amazing, how you can go from "making babies" together and being in love, to splitting up and becoming bitter enemies.

My cousin has shared care with his ex, it works out, a wk each with their children,, yet his ex claims child benefit and did try for the csa, and as she is the one with the child benefit, that gave her more rights than him!