Fed up with paying but not being able to see my children

60898m

I have been attacked by the Csa now for a year with them taking money direct from wages £900 p/m but I can't see my kids so enough is enough I'm going self employed any tips or thoughts

DUTR

60898m wrote: »

I have been attacked by the Csa now for a year with them taking money direct from wages £900 p/m but I can't see my kids so enough is enough I'm going self employed any tips or thoughts

It's not a pay per view scheme, there are laws and methods for contact, which won't be denied unless there is good recorded reason.

CakeCrusader

60898m wrote: »

I have been attacked by the Csa now for a year with them taking money direct from wages £900 p/m but I can't see my kids so enough is enough I'm going self employed any tips or thoughts

Why would you do this? Your children still need a roof over their head, they need shoes, food and clothes. If you're not able to see them enough, you need to see a solicitor and make an application for more contact, you don't stop paying maintenance as the only person you'll be hurting is them, and their relationship with you. I have a teenager with low self esteem, anxiety and depression because his father did something similar, and there's no relationship between them now. Think long and hard about what you're doing, as there's no way back.

Dasa

DUTR wrote: »

It's not a pay per view scheme, there are laws and methods for contact, which won't be denied unless there is good recorded reason.

The courts can make all sorts of contact orders but enforcing them is another thing altogether.

Dasa

CakeCrusader wrote: »

Why would you do this? Your children still need a roof over their head, they need shoes, food and clothes. If you're not able to see them enough, you need to see a solicitor and make an application for more contact, you don't stop paying maintenance as the only person you'll be hurting is them, and their relationship with you. I have a teenager with low self esteem, anxiety and depression because his father did something similar, and there's no relationship between them now. Think long and hard about what you're doing, as there's no way back.

Going SE doesn't mean stopping paying, it means he will pay less as he can claim more and get his nett income down.

NotSuchASmugMarriedNow

How will going self employed enable you to see more of your children?

clearingout

Yeah. Go you. You'll be paying nothing at all in no time. :beer: How do you think that will help you see your children? Will it improve your relationship with their other parent? Do you want them to grow up and know that one parent refused them a relationship with the other whilst the other did everything they could to avoid supporting them financially? Who will come off worst in this situation?

Children need one sane parent. Even if that sane parent is forced to be absent. Play tit for tat games and it will back fire. Hang on in there, be consistent, fair, reasonable and who will come off worst then?

Have you tried the court route?

RuthnJasper

jondav wrote: »

Completely wrong that a mother is able to stop the father having involvement with his children, but is still happy to take his money every month. Cake and eat it springs to mind.

There may be a very good reason why a father should not have access to his children. Not saying this is necessarily the case with the OP.

elsien

jondav wrote: »

Completely wrong that a mother is able to stop the father having involvement with his children, but is still happy to take his money every month. Cake and eat it springs to mind.

You have no idea why the OP doesn't see his children. It may be the mother being obstructive, or there may be a court order that has cut contact to protect the children for some reason. Either way, anyone who has children should be prepared to pay for their upbringing, not penalise them because they and the resident parent aren't able to put the children's wellbeing first.

elsien

I didn't. The phrase I used was they "and the resident parent." I know some resident parents are idiots. That doesn't mean the children should lose out - challenge it properly rather than just refuse to pay.

clearingout

jondav wrote: »

And neither do you, so why do you assume that it is the NRP that is penalising the children?

There is no assumption. The NRP in this case has made it crystal clear that he (I assume he?) has made a decision to go self employed because he is aware that in doing so, he will significantly reduce and/or obliterate all together his need to support his children financially. In most people's book this is 'penalising the children'.