Is this Right?

BC_Rangers

missylou wrote: »

Em...

If you can provide a better explanation than it is a very long boring week from one signing on to the next, then please feel free to explain! :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

A child, somewhere on this planet, could probably do with the oxygen you're robbing them of.

Peterboro

repsolblade you should be head of the CSA

kelloggs36

If that was the case my daughter would be in care as her father has no intentions of providing ANY care, financial or otherwise. Are you saying that only those who can afford to have children as single parents should keep them? It is up to both parents to maintain them whether they live together or not! It shouldn't matter or not whether a PWC can afford to bring up the child or not by themselves as both mother and father are equally the children's parents - they should both therefore pay for their upbringing, based upon their ability to do so. Therefore the more one earns, the more they pay. Bear in mind that whatever increase in wages one gets the increase in maintenace is not penny for penny, but a % of it, so you get to keep the vast majority of it for whatever your needs are.

BC_Rangers

kelloggs36 wrote: »

If that was the case my daughter would be in care as her father has no intentions of providing ANY care, financial or otherwise. Are you saying that only those who can afford to have children as single parents should keep them? It is up to both parents to maintain them whether they live together or not! It shouldn't matter or not whether a PWC can afford to bring up the child or not by themselves as both mother and father are equally the children's parents - they should both therefore pay for their upbringing, based upon their ability to do so. Therefore the more one earns, the more they pay. Bear in mind that whatever increase in wages one gets the increase in maintenace is not penny for penny, but a % of it, so you get to keep the vast majority of it for whatever your needs are.

Of course both parents are duty-bound to provide financial , as well as emotional and moral support for their young 'uns. This point has been made throughout the thread , and by people on both sides of what looks is a deep divide...

Regarding increased payments linked to rising income - when a given percentage of ones earnings are earmarked by the CSA , we enter into murky waters. Simply put , its possible that the recommended payment can turn out to be an agreeable sum as far as "Child Support" goes , and the father has no issues with the increase atall.

The water gets murky when a different situation arises , the one which seems to have stirred the most controversy here: The CSA propose a percentage based increase in support payments which presents a descrepancy - that is to say , the requested sum far exceeds what could reasonably be demanded as a healthy contribution to the childs maintenace.

THAT is the powderkeg!:p

ON one hand , we have Fathers who are dissatisfied with paying out a sum which results in an excess finding its way into the Mother's hands. She can of course spend it in any which way , and in cases where the CSA have enforced payments disproportionate to reasonable demands , there is little to be done.

On the other , we have Mothers who have left , or been left by , socially inadequate partners who have proven to be as useless from a distance at rearing children as they were while at home. I don't for a second doubt that such malcontents exist in society.

I also don't doubt for a second that the aforementioned "Singo Maw" leech sub-species occurs in spades.

As someone beknownst to people who have suffered stunted upbringings at the hands of golddigging mums , I'm in the fathers camp and you have already guessed that. I'm not biased to the point of blindness but I will make my point here as stridently as people on opposite sides have:

- The children come first

- Yes Fathers should give the necessary and requisite support to their children, moral and emotional guidance should come naturally

- Those who don't should not be fathers

- As said earlier having children is a privelage and not a right. Listing the costs (real or imagined) of rearing a child on your own in a laughably melancholic and feeble manner rightly attracts derision and suggests that privelage was missplaced!

- Fathers are marginalised by the CSA , leaving a great many prone to legalised robbery and fraud

- Those found to make and pursue claims that markedly exceed reasonable demands for support (IE What is required as a healthy financial contribution!) , should be fined and their custody reviewed

- Equality for the malcontents on both sides; layabout fathers AND fraudster mothers should be regarded as the reptiles that they surely are.



Fraudulent claims pursued by the CSA are not an illusion ; They are State robbery.



:beer: Yee Haw...

kelloggs36

What is a fraudulent claim? If by this you mean a claim made by a mother against a father whom she knows not to be so, then I agree. However, the father would have to have an idea that this is so to be aggrieved about it and there are ways around this to avoid such a situation. The other fraudulent situation is where an Income Support claimant is not entitled to claim income support and therefore no automatic CSA claim should have been made. Again, this can be rectified but it has to be done via the Income Support first - they have to deem the claim as fraudulent and calculate an overpayment - then the CSA case can be withdrawn. The CSA are bound to the Income Support decision.

The reason for increases in maintenance when a parent has an increase in income is that if the child were living in that household then they would automatically be getting the benefit of any increases in income - there IS NO set rate of maintenance that can be made for everybody as every household will have different ideas and priorities on how they bring up their children. The law cannot meet this differentiation by asking each family how they would intend to spend their money. The point was that children share the wealth of their parents - both parents not just the father as many mothers pay child support too and whichever parent is left behind to bring up the children makes their contribution by default. The only case where I would argue that this should not be the case is where parents have exactly 50/50 shared care as the children will be sharing equally in the wealth of both parents and there should be no maintenance payable on either side in this situation. One parent may argue that they could bring the child up cheaper than the other but this argument tends to only be after they have split up and they want to save some money - understandable that they want to do this, but at the same time the child should not have to suffer financially because of the break up of their parents. Two sets of parents will have completely different ideas on how they want to bring their children up and will bring them up based on their financial situation so it isn't possible to say that it costs X to bring up a child. For very poor people they won't be able to afford to pay this and for very rich people who can easily afford to do so the child will lose out as they won't be getting what they would have done had they remained as a family unit.

In most situations fathers are fully aware of the existence of their children when they leave and can factor in the relevant % of their income when moving on. They can't do this under CS1 but the only changes would be the housing costs which if they increase will reduce the maintenance payable. I have sympathy for those who do not have any idea of the existence of the children when they get a claim land on their mat years down the line and then they have to juggle their finances.

BC_Rangers

Even though common themes often run through broken homes there are differences. I appreciate that. The point I raised earlier was more or less to assert the following : with all factors taken into account , it is not difficult (Or should not be) to come up with an appropriate sum on a case-by-case basis. All that is required is a little insight and intuition.

On a different point yes , its a given that if a parents earnings rise then usually the child would see the benefit. The issue is , where and with whom? In the stable home , earnings rise , the nipper gains and both parents are there to nurture and see the fruits of their parental guidance.

But we are talking about broken homes , so this is not the case. When one parent has custody , the other contributes an increased amount but is not around generally to see the benefits. A father wants to see the benefits first hand (During "their time") , and it goes deep.

To make a very flimsy analogy , if you had rose seeds would you prefer to send them to a friend to let them grow them for you , or see the flowers grow on your own windowledge?

When two people separate unfortunately they tend to become territorial and possesive in many ways. Sadly the instinct to guide a child can crossover into subliminal possesiveness borne of a fear of losing them altogther. Anyway , I say this as someone with probably many less years experience than yourself and I myself am not a parent and so out of my depth from the start. I just felt this was a subject close to the bone and wanted to offer my 2 cents - its appreciated you entered into some discussion.:beer:

missylou_2

BC_Rangers wrote: »

A child, somewhere on this planet, could probably do with the oxygen you're robbing them of.

Can you elaborate please?

BC_Rangers

missylou wrote: »

Can you elaborate please?

You have tussled with repsolblade over this - you did seem to imply earlier on that the honest soul was infact one of the dole scrounging horde.

I probably responded with harsher words than were necessary and by all accounts you're probably a decent lass to get to know.

But wherever we go , there we are:p

missylou_2

My problem was not and never has been with the OP. He has referred to financial situation numerous times throughout his post so I am aware that he works for a living.

I responded solely to a comment regarding fathers for justice. I did this as my son's father is a proactive member of this organisation, not because he has any real interest in parental rights, (at least I don't think he has as he has not bothered to contact us in over eight years!) but is involved because apparently they campaign against the CSA!

It is not exactly unknown for members of this group to state that fighting for their rights is their lifes work, (and for fathers actually concerned regarding their childrens upbringing and welfare, then I respect their choice.) However I beleive that my ex is not a solitary occurence, and that there are many members comfortably living off state handouts using this as an excuse.

Pleas read my original thread before you judge me.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=474881

Kimitatsu

It is nice to see that we MAY be able to have a reasonable debate on this issue without everyone getting into a slanging match!

The majprity of people on this board had children in a loving relationship, the deciaion to have children was tken by both parties. I hear fathers proclaim that they were the victim of "sperm thieves" and how they should not have to pay but it is the duty of care on both sides to ensure that they take relevant precautions. In the 21st Century we have more than enough medical intervention to prevent unwanted pregnancies and DNA tests to ascertain parentage, so if you are not prepared to take the consequences then take care of yourselves.

What is an agreeable sum? Whatever increase you take the majority of NRP's will take umbridge at, I dare not work out how much my kids cost me, I would soon realise that I couldnt possibly afford them, but I do and on a daily basis. Many NRP's are the ones who went out to work to provide for their families and so do not necessarily have the full picture as to how much it costs to keep these children that they have, in many cases the PWC has to go back to work to make ends meet and so incurs childcare costs, and travel costs that they may not have had when the NRP was living with them. For amny families the costs increase as the child gets older so what was a very reasonable settlement when the child was 1 is not 10 years later after it has been eroded by inflation and the rising costs of living.

It is at this point that many NRP's have gone through an acrimonious divorce decide that they are "not paying anythng more" towards the PWC because they should be looking after themselves and the money should go entirely to their children. But in reality, a PWC who works full time and then has to come home and spend the time becing a full time parent to their children has two full time jobs not one, if the maintenance goes some way towards them not having to work 40 hours a week but say 30 hours then that gives them time to nurture those rose seeds a little more. Ultimately this is the best thing for the children, parents who are home in the evening, less stressed and able to give them the attention and support they need to grow up.

Child Support only lasts until that child is 17 or finishes full time education for that reason, the law does not take into account the needs of either parent this law was designed ONLY to take into account the needs of the child, and with the best will in the world everyone has different ideas so it was doomed to fail from the start, there is no such thing as a one size fits all formula.

I like the ananlogy of the rose seeds, the problem is as some people have said, some NRP's (and thats mothers as well as fathers) would never even open the packet. They would far prefer to wander around everyone elses gardens and window boxes because the percieve themselves to be devoid of the responsibility, for them IMO the penalties should be harsh because it is the child that suffers, but I am talkign about persistent negligence to provide information, willfull ignorance etc. As you have said it is not a right to have a child, but in this day and age apparently some people think it is, some just atake it for granted never realising the gift they were given.