fathers

wish that I had a magic wand for you guys I know so many dads that are unable to have their children with them . through no fault of their own..just dont give up .some x wives are great mums  but can be vindictive and thats when the trouble start  when couples split up its painful and the children are then used as pawns . in some extreme  cases the mother has a good reason to banish the father .and the courts are right to support the wife if violence is present in the relationship  however some x wives  use the court just because their new partners dont agree with the father being  around .

Why is this idea important?

wish that I had a magic wand for you guys I know so many dads that are unable to have their children with them . through no fault of their own..just dont give up .some x wives are great mums  but can be vindictive and thats when the trouble start  when couples split up its painful and the children are then used as pawns . in some extreme  cases the mother has a good reason to banish the father .and the courts are right to support the wife if violence is present in the relationship  however some x wives  use the court just because their new partners dont agree with the father being  around .

child support rules.

csa are biased  towards the fathers ….if the parent has the children  for  a full week  that parent  .should not have to pay the csa  just because the   <mother. normally >  has the last word and insist . on the payment even though the children  are not in her care..each case should have one case worker  not dozens . the departments  of csa  are too big .and they also answer to no one .    if the absent fathers  dont want to pay .they never will …its a complete waste of time and money  .to send to prison the fathers who are trying the best they can…csa  pursues  the fathers  who are already  trying to  stay in their children lives.

i think that it is a crime. the way  the csa    have the right to add on as they please.  fines for this .and fines for that  .sometimes .most times. it leaves the fathers in arrears  for thousands  of pounds  even an IDIOT  .     must realise  that the fathers  on the csa books  are there because  they did  run away   AND ARE NOT ABSENT  FATHERS      .WHEN A PARENT IS BEHIND WITH PAYMENT  ..THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO ATTEND  AN INDEPENDENT MEETING  WITH INDEPENDENT  PEOPLE  WHO WILL LISTEN  ..NOT SEND THEM TO COURT ..

Why is this idea important?

csa are biased  towards the fathers ….if the parent has the children  for  a full week  that parent  .should not have to pay the csa  just because the   <mother. normally >  has the last word and insist . on the payment even though the children  are not in her care..each case should have one case worker  not dozens . the departments  of csa  are too big .and they also answer to no one .    if the absent fathers  dont want to pay .they never will …its a complete waste of time and money  .to send to prison the fathers who are trying the best they can…csa  pursues  the fathers  who are already  trying to  stay in their children lives.

i think that it is a crime. the way  the csa    have the right to add on as they please.  fines for this .and fines for that  .sometimes .most times. it leaves the fathers in arrears  for thousands  of pounds  even an IDIOT  .     must realise  that the fathers  on the csa books  are there because  they did  run away   AND ARE NOT ABSENT  FATHERS      .WHEN A PARENT IS BEHIND WITH PAYMENT  ..THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO ATTEND  AN INDEPENDENT MEETING  WITH INDEPENDENT  PEOPLE  WHO WILL LISTEN  ..NOT SEND THEM TO COURT ..

Scrap the CSA / CMEC and Rewrite the Child Support Act

Get rid of the Child Support Agency / Child Support Enforcement Commission

Rewrite or repeal and recreate a new Child Support Bill that will maintain civil liberties, make private arrangements the default way to support children, give any future child support public services arbitration powers ONLY and ensure that payments / maintenance is ongoing but otherwise keep out of the publics lives. Enforcements will be arbitrated fairly through the courts but no type of financial blackmail will be made. Natural justice will allow the absent parent to be allowed to defend themselves in a fair trial and his or her circumstances will be taken into consideration against any liability which at present is not what is happening in the current system as courts must pass any liability order passed once received by the CSA / CMEC. This is a bar and denial to natural justice, since a fair trial is not granted to the non resident parent at present.

No funds will be made available for the state from maintenance payments even if the parent with care of the children is on benefits. This is to prevent abuse of power and making up amounts that are owed, which has led to exploitation of non resident parents and using the courts to blackmail them or fleece them. To prevent such corruption from occurring and the temptation to exploit financially, this costly measure must be made.

 

100% of the maintenance will go to the child's support through a public sector created bank account or post office account. The child when old enough will be able to also draw out the money when deemed responsible enough.

Why is this idea important?

Get rid of the Child Support Agency / Child Support Enforcement Commission

Rewrite or repeal and recreate a new Child Support Bill that will maintain civil liberties, make private arrangements the default way to support children, give any future child support public services arbitration powers ONLY and ensure that payments / maintenance is ongoing but otherwise keep out of the publics lives. Enforcements will be arbitrated fairly through the courts but no type of financial blackmail will be made. Natural justice will allow the absent parent to be allowed to defend themselves in a fair trial and his or her circumstances will be taken into consideration against any liability which at present is not what is happening in the current system as courts must pass any liability order passed once received by the CSA / CMEC. This is a bar and denial to natural justice, since a fair trial is not granted to the non resident parent at present.

No funds will be made available for the state from maintenance payments even if the parent with care of the children is on benefits. This is to prevent abuse of power and making up amounts that are owed, which has led to exploitation of non resident parents and using the courts to blackmail them or fleece them. To prevent such corruption from occurring and the temptation to exploit financially, this costly measure must be made.

 

100% of the maintenance will go to the child's support through a public sector created bank account or post office account. The child when old enough will be able to also draw out the money when deemed responsible enough.

PARENTAL RIGHTS LAWS TO BE MORE EQUAL AND NOT SKEWED TOWARDS THE MOTHER

Regularly, there are reports about un-married fathers having to go through the expensive and laborious Court system in order to gain parental rights despite some mothers clearly being unable to look after their children.The system favours the mother on all fronts.Surely a more simplified system which takes into account the amount of time a father spends with his children and financial support should sway the rules in a more equal and fair direction.

Why is this idea important?

Regularly, there are reports about un-married fathers having to go through the expensive and laborious Court system in order to gain parental rights despite some mothers clearly being unable to look after their children.The system favours the mother on all fronts.Surely a more simplified system which takes into account the amount of time a father spends with his children and financial support should sway the rules in a more equal and fair direction.

Stop The CSA Penalising Savers.

Since the CSA was formed, they have used the Statutory Rate of Interest at 8% to assess how much income is earnt from savings that a non-resident parent has despite the fact that 2-3% is more realistic these days. Tax deductions on income from these savings is not taken into account either. So if a non-resident parent works hard, pays maintenance of 15% or more from his salary but still manages to save, he/she then ends up paying up to 60% of the income from his savings on top.

The Statutory Rate of Interest is a high draconian rate used by the Inland Revenue to punish late tax payers. So why is the CSA using a 'punishment' interest rate on non-resident parents?

It would be a simple matter to either 1) assess true income from savings based on a tax return, or 2) set a realistic rate of interest each tax year based say on average savings rates available.

Why is this idea important?

Since the CSA was formed, they have used the Statutory Rate of Interest at 8% to assess how much income is earnt from savings that a non-resident parent has despite the fact that 2-3% is more realistic these days. Tax deductions on income from these savings is not taken into account either. So if a non-resident parent works hard, pays maintenance of 15% or more from his salary but still manages to save, he/she then ends up paying up to 60% of the income from his savings on top.

The Statutory Rate of Interest is a high draconian rate used by the Inland Revenue to punish late tax payers. So why is the CSA using a 'punishment' interest rate on non-resident parents?

It would be a simple matter to either 1) assess true income from savings based on a tax return, or 2) set a realistic rate of interest each tax year based say on average savings rates available.

CSA needs to cut time for DEO’s

I have been dealing with the CSA since February 2010 due to my ex stopping maintenance in January.  The CSA have been a complete nightmare as you never get to speak to the same person which is very annoying as you are then forced to re tell the same information over and over again.  I have been told several different dates for when my first payment would be received only to be left disapointed.  My ex doesn't have a bank account so a DEO dedution from earnings order was set up.  I received the payments schedule and thought that everything was sorted and that I knew where I stood,  this was not the case however.  The schedule failed to tell me that the employer had until the 19th of the FOLLOWING month to send the payment to the CSA, then upto a further 10 days to clear in my account, this needs changing.  Why does any employer need that amount of time to send the payment?  I am behind in my rent and have been forced to sell items to stay afloat.  I was told by a CSA rep that they usually verbally tell claimants about this they didn't tell me.  I recently received my first payment , it was a month late (the employer messed up) only to find the payment £60 short.  The CSA hadn't noticed this until I contacted them.  I was told as usual that they would look into this and that they would phone me within 48 hours, they didn't phone back.  When I contacted them (another person again) again was told that they would look into it, also that as usual that I would have to wait.  The CSA needs another overhaul with dedicated case workers that will know your case. 

Why is this idea important?

I have been dealing with the CSA since February 2010 due to my ex stopping maintenance in January.  The CSA have been a complete nightmare as you never get to speak to the same person which is very annoying as you are then forced to re tell the same information over and over again.  I have been told several different dates for when my first payment would be received only to be left disapointed.  My ex doesn't have a bank account so a DEO dedution from earnings order was set up.  I received the payments schedule and thought that everything was sorted and that I knew where I stood,  this was not the case however.  The schedule failed to tell me that the employer had until the 19th of the FOLLOWING month to send the payment to the CSA, then upto a further 10 days to clear in my account, this needs changing.  Why does any employer need that amount of time to send the payment?  I am behind in my rent and have been forced to sell items to stay afloat.  I was told by a CSA rep that they usually verbally tell claimants about this they didn't tell me.  I recently received my first payment , it was a month late (the employer messed up) only to find the payment £60 short.  The CSA hadn't noticed this until I contacted them.  I was told as usual that they would look into this and that they would phone me within 48 hours, they didn't phone back.  When I contacted them (another person again) again was told that they would look into it, also that as usual that I would have to wait.  The CSA needs another overhaul with dedicated case workers that will know your case. 

SCRAP THE CSA AND GIVE BACK POWER TO THE COURTS TO AWARD MAINTENANCE

I am a single mother and would like the CSA should be abolished. 

The CSA has NIL assessed my millionaire ex husband and therefore not received any maintenance from him for the last year.  I have asked the CSA to reinvestigate the mater based on the further information I have provided (i.e he resides in a house, owned in his name worth £2 million pounds and drives luxury vehicles)!  He also is self employed and therefore manipulates his earnings. 

The CSA lack jurisdications to invetsigate the matter further.  The maintenence awarding power should be given back to the Court to determine the level of how much the non resident parent should pay. 

He still see's his son and now has overnight contact with him.

In my opinion the non paying father should not have no right to contact. 

Why is this idea important?

I am a single mother and would like the CSA should be abolished. 

The CSA has NIL assessed my millionaire ex husband and therefore not received any maintenance from him for the last year.  I have asked the CSA to reinvestigate the mater based on the further information I have provided (i.e he resides in a house, owned in his name worth £2 million pounds and drives luxury vehicles)!  He also is self employed and therefore manipulates his earnings. 

The CSA lack jurisdications to invetsigate the matter further.  The maintenence awarding power should be given back to the Court to determine the level of how much the non resident parent should pay. 

He still see's his son and now has overnight contact with him.

In my opinion the non paying father should not have no right to contact. 

Make child maintenance payments tax deductible

Statistics suggest that 40% of fathers lose touch with their children post divorce or separation.  Despite a great deal of talk about equality, working fathers still do not enjoy equality in the family courts when it comes to orders for staying contact in relation tot heir children. Notwithstanding this continued inequality, generally working fathers are expected to provide for their children (and, rather inevitably, by doing so their ex-spouse or partner) both in terms of capital (for a new home) and income (by way of spousal and/or child maintenance).  Given the gross inequality in the system – coupled with the fact that maintenance payments are paid from net income – it is little wonder that so many would be responsible fathers choose to buck the system and avoid making any maintenance payments, thereby causing the state to have to step in with over inflated tax credit payments.  In order to encourage fathers to assume greater responsibility for the financial well being of their children, I believe that at least chil maintenace payments – and possibly also spousal maintenance payments – should be tax deductible, so that the payer (normally, but not exclusively, the working father)  does not feel that the system is completely weighted against him.    

Why is this idea important?

Statistics suggest that 40% of fathers lose touch with their children post divorce or separation.  Despite a great deal of talk about equality, working fathers still do not enjoy equality in the family courts when it comes to orders for staying contact in relation tot heir children. Notwithstanding this continued inequality, generally working fathers are expected to provide for their children (and, rather inevitably, by doing so their ex-spouse or partner) both in terms of capital (for a new home) and income (by way of spousal and/or child maintenance).  Given the gross inequality in the system – coupled with the fact that maintenance payments are paid from net income – it is little wonder that so many would be responsible fathers choose to buck the system and avoid making any maintenance payments, thereby causing the state to have to step in with over inflated tax credit payments.  In order to encourage fathers to assume greater responsibility for the financial well being of their children, I believe that at least chil maintenace payments – and possibly also spousal maintenance payments – should be tax deductible, so that the payer (normally, but not exclusively, the working father)  does not feel that the system is completely weighted against him.    

Child Maintenance

As someone who has been through divorce, with a young child involved, I was dismayed that solicitors adopt an approach that assumes that the mother is the child's first choice for residency. Unless you wish (as the father) to go through a lengthly and costly court process the father generally ends up having the child every weekend and one night during the week (3 nights out of seven). The mother will not allow the child to stay at the father's home more than three nights as it will give up her right to receive child maintenance money.

Why is this idea important?

As someone who has been through divorce, with a young child involved, I was dismayed that solicitors adopt an approach that assumes that the mother is the child's first choice for residency. Unless you wish (as the father) to go through a lengthly and costly court process the father generally ends up having the child every weekend and one night during the week (3 nights out of seven). The mother will not allow the child to stay at the father's home more than three nights as it will give up her right to receive child maintenance money.

Large divorce settlements and maintenance payments

I think that when people divorce it should be a clean break and each party should be responsible for their own financial future i.e. get a job. At the very least if one spouse has not worked for some time they should get a minimal fixed amount of maintenance for a maximum of 1 year while they pursue a job or training. Getting divorced should not result in you having to support someone through maintenance, or paying out a large sum of money.  NB: I do believe that child maintenance should be paid, but this should also be a reasonable figure and not artificially inflated because the non-custodial ex-spouse is wealthy.

Why is this idea important?

I think that when people divorce it should be a clean break and each party should be responsible for their own financial future i.e. get a job. At the very least if one spouse has not worked for some time they should get a minimal fixed amount of maintenance for a maximum of 1 year while they pursue a job or training. Getting divorced should not result in you having to support someone through maintenance, or paying out a large sum of money.  NB: I do believe that child maintenance should be paid, but this should also be a reasonable figure and not artificially inflated because the non-custodial ex-spouse is wealthy.

Equal Rights for Fathers

In the event of separation/divorce, joint residency should be the norm rather than the exception. Under current rules, it is absurd that a father may have to still pay child maintenance to the mother even if the children have more overnight stays with him because historically the mother has been the one in receipt of child allowance (the Child Support Agency use this to determine who the resident parent is and therefore who pays (or not) child maintenance).

Why is this idea important?

In the event of separation/divorce, joint residency should be the norm rather than the exception. Under current rules, it is absurd that a father may have to still pay child maintenance to the mother even if the children have more overnight stays with him because historically the mother has been the one in receipt of child allowance (the Child Support Agency use this to determine who the resident parent is and therefore who pays (or not) child maintenance).

Child Support Agency

Move ALL Child Maintenance Cases to ONE SYSTEM – There are currently two systems of Child Maintenance Calculations in use by the CSA – One for Children born pre 2003, and one for Children born after 2003.

Why is this idea important?

Move ALL Child Maintenance Cases to ONE SYSTEM – There are currently two systems of Child Maintenance Calculations in use by the CSA – One for Children born pre 2003, and one for Children born after 2003.

Abolish CMSA

I feel there should not be a csa or as now known cmsa.

Parents should be able to sort out their child maintenance between them as it seems very heavily unfair on fathers who both love and support their children and are penalised when they already are happy to come to an arrangement with the mother.

This would save the government many thousands of pounds as this department has always been controversial. It is an intrusion into the lives of so many. In my view parents should take the responsibility themselves and if a mother or parent is not receiving anything from the other parent, they should seek legal advice, but it is a personal matter and not one that the state should be involved in. 

Speaking personally, as a mother and divorcee myself who did not go to the CSA or indeed take any money from my ex as i knew he couldnt afford it, and i didnt want to have animosity, i find it hard to understand mothers who can be so thoughtless about their ex partners financial situation. I remarried and my new husband's ex has made our life very difficult as we were at one point left with so little money to manage on i had to take antidepressants..

Why is this idea important?

I feel there should not be a csa or as now known cmsa.

Parents should be able to sort out their child maintenance between them as it seems very heavily unfair on fathers who both love and support their children and are penalised when they already are happy to come to an arrangement with the mother.

This would save the government many thousands of pounds as this department has always been controversial. It is an intrusion into the lives of so many. In my view parents should take the responsibility themselves and if a mother or parent is not receiving anything from the other parent, they should seek legal advice, but it is a personal matter and not one that the state should be involved in. 

Speaking personally, as a mother and divorcee myself who did not go to the CSA or indeed take any money from my ex as i knew he couldnt afford it, and i didnt want to have animosity, i find it hard to understand mothers who can be so thoughtless about their ex partners financial situation. I remarried and my new husband's ex has made our life very difficult as we were at one point left with so little money to manage on i had to take antidepressants..