MSE News: Separated parents told: Agree on child support or face fees

monty-doggy

I guess it's a crap situation for everyone. I agree if absent parents don't pay then yes they should be charged for the collection however if parents have always paid and can prove that then they shouldn't have this imposed on them and the resident parent shouldn't be able to insist on it.

Gavin83

As far as I'm aware the resident parent can choose to approach the CSA at will, even if there is an agreement in place. If this is still the case how is it fair that the non resident parent will be potentially charged for a service they don't want when they were perfectly willing to cooperate? I'm hoping that if there's proof that the non resident parent were willing to pay then the charge is transferred to the resident parent but I can't really see this happening, it's a money making scheme after all.

I can also see resident parents demanding more than the statutory 15% in order to avoid taking it through the CSA, basically bribery if you will.

Leo2020

monty-doggy wrote: »

My oh has never missed a payment in 6 years. My annoyance is his ex could do this just to spite him. We've got a baby on the way and £50 extra a month would cripple us. Yes the resident parent has to pay for the children but she also gets tax credits and other benefits, we get nothing. She is actually 'earning' far more a month than we are on her benefits and she could throw this at us for no reason other than to be a cow.

I'm sure they will be some who will use this as an excuse to be a pain in the bum to their ex, but I think they are in the minority. After all she will receive less money if she goes through this so she will be biting her nose off to spite her face (not that I'm saying she won't do this but I'm sure plenty of resident parents won't do it for this reason).

Presumably she gets some of the tax credits and other benefits because she is the main carer.

On a side note: once your child is here you might qualifying for child tax credits yourself. Along with child allowance/child benefit - about £20 for the first child per week - not much but better than nothing. You might find yourself thankful for the benefits she gets because it also means you, and I and plenty of other parents also get them.

DS4215

monty-doggy wrote: »

My oh has never missed a payment in 6 years. My annoyance is his ex could do this just to spite him. We've got a baby on the way and £50 extra a month would cripple us. Yes the resident parent has to pay for the children but she also gets tax credits and other benefits, we get nothing. She is actually 'earning' far more a month than we are on her benefits and she could throw this at us for no reason other than to be a cow.

When your baby arrives, won't his payments to his ex drop proportionally as he will also have to provide for your child as well as his existing ones.

Carl31

Even if an agreement is made between parents, imagine when the excuses come

'Oh, ill pay it next week'

'Im a bit short this month, can i pay you a bit less?'

'Theres a problem with my bank'

etc..

The reason the CSA exists is because these arrangements cannot be made, else everyone would be making their own arrangements already. This is going to end in tears

BigAunty

It's a shame the UK has high relationship breakdowns and large numbers of Non-resident parents who refuse to support their children.

Quite how a government department was supposed to be able to effective in this environment, I don't know - so many parents breaking up, the rise in intentional lone parenthood, too, and a very common lack of cooperation by the other parent refusing to pay.

The CSA are effectively up against a tidalwave of families splitting up - thousands do this every day - and the children quite routinely abandoned by the second parent.

Not sure how a state department was ever supposed to be able to have enough resources to deal with what is effectively a private, personal family and legal matter.

sax11

I'm all for non resident parents to pay, i have and will do so until they are of the age where i don't need to anymore

What does annoy me is when the residential parent only has them for 6hrs more a week than the non resident, has an other half that seems to live there a lot and collectively earns 3 times the non resident.

Yes, this is my situation and i'm a little bit bitter about it.

izzyuk59

:rotfl: I worked for these comedians for 13 years - to my chagrin and shame.

It was continually run by knee jerk reaction to each catastrophe when the system(s) broke down. Each time we were given impossible targets to reach stats were manipulated (just like the Jobcentre) to satisfy Whitehall bigots who tried to convince the likes of Frank Field we were doing our best.

I started on telephony - the worst job ever, trying to help people at the worst moments in their lives. We've had suicides, a murder, death threats and thousands of hours of abusive callers for which I was never paid enough to deal with. This continued for the first 5 years of CSA business until I managed to get onto a team.

I moved to a Specialist Trace team - probably the most satisfying job when you actually found someone. You'd be amazed what some do to avoid their parental responsibility. They take it out on the 'EX' via us. No consideration for the child. Best call I ever made was telling a guy he owed nearly 87K in penalty assessments but if he talked with me I could help get them down to a rightful level where he could still live and pay his due. He ended up owing about £12K when finally assessed and even sent me a thanks letter (yes, we got a few along the way!) He even ended up back in touch with his child - a rare thing in avoiders.

So........ Fees. They were always there, just never imposed due to our inability to work and deliver a good service. They are being imposed now to close the CSA/CSM by making people go back to private agreements. Eventually I guarrantee this department will be aligned with the HMRC just as Tax Credits are (used to be done by DWP as Family Credit) - the writing was on the wall for this nearly 8 years ago. I'd put money on it.

Child support may be law, will always be an emotive topic but ultimately it is a moral choice. You have a child, you are financially responsible for them. Deal with it.

I had to leave as I couldn't accept the (lack of) level of service. I went to another department only to find the 'old standards' are long gone. Sloppiness and statistic manipulation are the norm now. I am glad to no longer be a part of something I put 32 years of my life into. I'm ashamed of what it has become, even more so as I am now a customer of the very service I used to deliver in DWP.

Wyre

I hate this idea. In theory it should work, I mean why would any parent not want to pay to support their child? In practice, from my own experience, it can be almost impossible to get some dads to part with their cash.

I have received nothing for my eldest children for most of their lives. I had no contact with either father as they wanted nothing to do with the children. I didn't until recently know where either of them lived. With one, I have had to resort to my MP, who managed to get the CSA to finally sort it out via DEO. The ex doesn't acknowledge he has a child and therefore WILL not pay unless it is taken directly from his wages.

I am not obstructive in this, I just want support for my children. In this situation, why should the children lose out? Imo, in situations like this it is the NRP that should be bearing the extra costs as they are preventing amicable solutions.

StuC75

As a NRP I never thought to request my payments be reduced when had a 2nd child - I viewed that it was our choice and to be balanced alongside all my commitments - i.e. I wouldn't expect that if the PWC had another child that my payments would go up as a result of a change in there circumstances..

DS4215 wrote: »

When your baby arrives, won't his payments to his ex drop proportionally as he will also have to provide for your child as well as his existing ones.