Child Support Agency Help!

Mojisola

DUTR wrote: »

and other NRP (used to be called absent parents)

There were objections to the term 'absent parents' from separated parents who were very present in their children's lives despite not living full-time with them.

DUTR

Pixie5740 wrote: »

Says the poster who claimed my mentality was holding modern women back after saying I implied something which I never did.





I don't know a single, single parent family where the resident parent does not work. Most of whom earn too much to claim child benefit or any tax credits. All the single parent families I know are home owners bar one who rents privately. No, not all the non-resident parents are male.




So it is just semantics then. I'm glad we got there in the end.

I did say a large minority, sadly around where I am, the majority are 'lazy' spoilt and demanding or desperate and needy. Many of the ones that do work usually just do the minimum to claim all the other handouts. That is not to say that some of the ladies where I work are not full time hard working like the ones that you know.

As for the semantics
contribution: a voluntary gift (as of money or service or ideas) made to some worthwhile cause.

Payment : reward or punishment

So I see my CSA as contribution towards a worthwhile cause not a reward to the PWC or punishment to me, I have no resentment in that.

DUTR

Mojisola wrote: »

There were objections to the term 'absent parents' from separated parents who were very present in their children's lives despite not living full-time with them.

Yes I agree, the terms the media and goverment used initially were incorrect, the current descriptions remove stigma.

FBaby

Person_one wrote: »

I think its right that we put the wellbeing of a child first and foremost above its parents. Whatever its parents choose or may want to choose, the child has no choice at all in who gave it half its DNA, but it does have a right to know who they are and to be supported by both of them.

Once a baby exists, its not about the adults' 'rights' anymore.

Pity they don't apply the same requirements on mums. It's only recently that single mums had to start looking for work by the time the child turned 5 and still no requirement to support their child at 3 despite them receiving free childcare.

Person_one

FBaby wrote: »

Pity they don't apply the same requirements on mums. It's only recently that single mums had to start looking for work by the time the child turned 5 and still no requirement to support their child at 3 despite them receiving free childcare.

Dads are no more forced to work than anybody else. In fact, we've seen threads on here where dads become stay at home parents to their 'new' families and suddenly have no legal obligation at all to their 'old' ones at all. No income = no maintenance required.

The support for single mums that you seem to oppose exists for exactly the same reasons that I mentioned in regard to maintenance. Its for the child, because the child's wellbeing has to take priority over punishing or rewarding parents.

Guest101

DUTR wrote: »

I did say a large minority, sadly around where I am, the majority are 'lazy' spoilt and demanding or desperate and needy. Many of the ones that do work usually just do the minimum to claim all the other handouts. That is not to say that some of the ladies where I work are not full time hard working like the ones that you know.

As for the semantics
contribution: a voluntary gift (as of money or service or ideas) made to some worthwhile cause.

Payment : reward or punishment

So I see my CSA as contribution towards a worthwhile cause not a reward to the PWC or punishment to me, I have no resentment in that.

It could be argued that only anything above the minimum is a contribution

DUTR

Guest101 wrote: »

It could be argued that only anything above the minimum is a contribution

Well yes, it depends on personal circumstance, some may change their working arrangement to reduce their minimum suggested amount due.

cw212010

Hi all,

Apologies for not getting back on here, left my laptop in work last night.

To just skim over things quickly, the individual is someone with whom I met nearly 10 years ago. Nothing happened other than fooling around, no actual intercourse.

From what I was able to research at the time, I was one of several able suitors. My name was literally pulled out the hat.

As an example, My name was given as John Smith, when intact my name is John Johnson-Smith. She was close, however the CSA obviously narrowed it down via location, age etc and pinned the tail on me.

Again, right or wrong the CSA or whatever they are called now left me a voicemail, having had my number from the previous cases. They informed me of the new procedures which, and I stand to be corrected, the named individual is liable to pay unless they can prove otherwise. If I try to prove otherwise, she will close the claim and start a fresh one in a few months.

I literally cannot prove anything as I don't get afforded the chance.

I will write to the CSA and make them aware that it is the girl who cried wolf and see what they do.

Thank you all for your advice.

Jagraf

cw212010 wrote: »

Hi all,

Apologies for not getting back on here, left my laptop in work last night.

To just skim over things quickly, the individual is someone with whom I met nearly 10 years ago. Nothing happened other than fooling around, no actual intercourse.

From what I was able to research at the time, I was one of several able suitors. My name was literally pulled out the hat.

As an example, My name was given as John Smith, when intact my name is John Johnson-Smith. She was close, however the CSA obviously narrowed it down via location, age etc and pinned the tail on me.

Again, right or wrong the CSA or whatever they are called now left me a voicemail, having had my number from the previous cases. They informed me of the new procedures which, and I stand to be corrected, the named individual is liable to pay unless they can prove otherwise. If I try to prove otherwise, she will close the claim and start a fresh one in a few months.

I literally cannot prove anything as I don't get afforded the chance.

I will write to the CSA and make them aware that it is the girl who cried wolf and see what they do.

Thank you all for your advice.

Why is she doing it? I don't see what she's trying to achieve

FBaby

Dads are no more forced to work than anybody else. In fact, we've seen threads on here where dads become stay at home parents to their 'new' families and suddenly have no legal obligation at all to their 'old' ones at all. No income = no maintenance required.

Exactly there are children who don't get anything from their father (that would include my children!), so why force a man to become a father when they didn't want to before it was even born? Mothers have the state to help them financially if they need to, I don't consider a man who didn't want a foetus becoming a baby a father. He never was.

Alternatively, if a man does want to become a father but the woman doesn't, why shouldn't she be forced to carry the baby for 9 months, give it over to the father, and then be told she has to pay child maintenance for the next 20 years. That would be for the benefit of the child too.

Whichever we put it, when it comes to parenthood, there is no such thing as equality of the sexes.