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

medsec_222

I am aware of this, that is why I think the playing field should be levelled. Once a court order is in place, I think that the child benefit should be divided in accordance with the order. Amazingly, there is such a species as the 'single father', who shares the care of his children, pays for everything that his children need when he is sharing the care of his children and also pays the mother. Nothing from the Government comes to these fathers by way of help, not even working tax family credit, and they are taxed as single persons with no dependants, although quite clearly this is not the case. The one size fits all approach by the CSA does not seem to work. They should leave compliant father alone and concentrate solely on those fathers who will not pay towards the maintenance of their children. In the end it would cost less overall to the taxpayer, and leave valuable resources for pursing the father who avoid paying.

SingleSue

Csa_Survivor wrote: »

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.

Again, the word some needs to be added...my ex husband pays maintenance (not through the CSA) but if I try to suggest he sees the children more than 3 hours per year (yes, it does say hours), the response I get is not decent for replicating on a forum.

I actually asked my solicitor during the divorce if there was a way to ensure he saw the children regularly to continue their relationship but apparently there isn't, a NRP cannot be forced into having access.

The end result of this has been children who do not have a proper relationship with their father, children who have animosity against their father (him saying he can't have time off work to see them and then going on holiday and boasting about it the exact same week), children who feel cheated out of having a father.

For my ex husband, his expectation is that if he pays maintenance, it is not then expected he can have access but that he will be left alone to enjoy a life without the complications of having children around...something else he has boasted about, having all school holidays and weekends child free so he can go away and do what he wants!

Cally_Smart

medsec_222 wrote: »

I am aware of this, that is why I think the playing field should be levelled. Once a court order is in place, I think that the child benefit should be divided in accordance with the order. Amazingly, there is such a species as the 'single father', who shares the care of his children, pays for everything that his children need when he is sharing the care of his children and also pays the mother. Nothing from the Government comes to these fathers by way of help, not even working tax family credit, and they are taxed as single persons with no dependants, although quite clearly this is not the case. The one size fits all approach by the CSA does not seem to work. They should leave compliant father alone and concentrate solely on those fathers who will not pay towards the maintenance of their children. In the end it would cost less overall to the taxpayer, and leave valuable resources for pursing the father who avoid paying.

What is most annoying about the CSA is that any good nrp who has been paying is classed as someone trying to get out of paying if they dare to question anything the pwc has said like in our particular case! It has been a total nightmare.The evidence is there it is getting them to look at it that is the problem!

PreludeForTimeFeelers

medsec_222 wrote: »

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.

In the new 2012 scheme they're called 'paying parents' and 'receiving parents'.

medsec_222

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

In the new 2012 scheme they're called 'paying parents' and 'receiving parents'.

At least the CSA seems to have got something right at last.

Marisco

Does that mean we have to ditch PWC and NRP then, and call them PP's and RP's?

seven-day-weekend

If it is shared care, why does anyone have to pay the other one? They both have to have a place big enough to accommodate the children, both arrange childcare and both pay for them while they are with them. Ideally they should share any child-related Benefits too.

Marisco

Spot on SDW. In those circumstances no maintenance should be paid by anyone, I've never understood why it is. It's ridiculous that they use CB as a criteria as to who is the PWC!

PreludeForTimeFeelers

Marisco wrote: »

Does that mean we have to ditch PWC and NRP then, and call them PP's and RP's?

They're still being referred to as NRPs and PWCs on the older schemes.

I've not been able to confirm what they're calling it when there has been a breakdown in payments...I wondered if it would be a 'non-paying paying parent' and a 'non-receiving receiving parent'..?

medsec_222

Despite having his children for over 50% of the time for one year and a shared residence order for the rest of the time, the CSA still called my son an absent father. No wonder there is so much resentment of this organisation.