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?
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.