Add Your Idea

CSA – remove the link between access for the NRP and level of contribution

2 Comments 5th July 2010

The CSA use a system which encourages people to deny access to the NRP.  This is fundamentally wrong.  If the parent who is fortunate enough to have the child(ren) denies access to the child then they are rewarded with more money.  This is the biggest injustice I have ever experienced.  I do not understand how this can be legal?  The CSA have too much power, they do not promote negotiation between separated parents they increase bitterness and resentment.  Surely a department which is intended to primarily provide something for children should actually do something for children?!  I would be more than happy to expand upon my own personal experiences, the CSA are not an organisation which represents anything to do with improving the upbringing of children.  It seems that they exist just to deny further access to children by rewarding the greedy parent.

Why does this matter?

My idea is important because children need both of their parents.  Relationships break down, it's unfortunate, but it happens.  Just because two parents no longer live together doesn't mean that the child should suffer.  I don't earn very much, but a significant proportion of my wages are stolen from me every month.  I'm fortunate to have my daughter often, but I can't afford to take her out like I used to.  Her other parent has a much improved social life which means that I see more of my daughter.  I did mention the fact that I have my daughter much more than my ex-wife stated to the CSA, but I was told that if I disagreed then I would see much less of my daughter.  How can this be right?

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)

Highlighted posts


2 Responses to CSA – remove the link between access for the NRP and level of contribution

  1. Martin Lascelles says:

    Nonsense!
    To get anything off the amount that the NRP pays, they have to have the child for at least 52 days a year, or 1 /7 of the nights. Sure, the PWC then receives 1/7 less child support, but they have the child forsomething between 5 and 6/7th of the time only, and have correspondingly less cost in food, etc.They still get 100% of the child Benefit, and Child Tax Credit.
    To make it even more starkly clear; if the so-called Non Resident Parent has the child for 50% of the time, they still have to pay half the full-time child support to the other parent, despite having exactly the same costs, and despite receiving none of the child-related government benefits. How can THAT be fair?

    The CSA system is fundamentally wrong all right, but changing the calculation so that the non-resident parent does not get a reduction that albeit only partially reflects the costs that they incur, would only make it even more financially unfair on the responsible non-resident parent who wants to share in caring for their child.

    The Australian system is far fairer, and recognises that when care is shared, what is important is the difference in the amount of care provided. If there is little or no difference, why should the CSA get involved at all?

  2. Martin Lascelles says:

    I should make it clear that I actuially agree with most of the above, but not with the suggestion solution. As a fellow sufferer from the unfairness of the CSA, and Child-benefit calculations I really sympathise. The main problem in the above case is that the CSA do not have the ability to decide who is telling truth, and by default they believe the parent with care. They don’t have the ability to make evidence-based decisions. The only answer is to go to court. A judge would take an extremely dim view of a parent with care threatening to withhold access to children because the NRP dares to question what they tell the CSA!

Comment on this idea

Good idea? Bad idea? Let us know your thoughts.


Back to top
Add Your Idea