LOVE CHILD NOT INCOME CHILD

Women should not be allowed to use children as a source of income, when they apply for child support they must prove that they were having a relationship with the father.

Women must not be allowed to manipulate the system to their own ends ,by producing children as a result of a one night-stand, after telling the man she was using contraception.

Then once the child is born the women then must not be allowed to use the C.S.A to exstract money from an unsuspecting male , who was unaware he had produced a child.

Before MEN are criminalised WOMEN must prove they have had a relationship with the childs father, most Dads are happy to pay a fair amount for a child that was wanted!

Why is this idea important?

Women should not be allowed to use children as a source of income, when they apply for child support they must prove that they were having a relationship with the father.

Women must not be allowed to manipulate the system to their own ends ,by producing children as a result of a one night-stand, after telling the man she was using contraception.

Then once the child is born the women then must not be allowed to use the C.S.A to exstract money from an unsuspecting male , who was unaware he had produced a child.

Before MEN are criminalised WOMEN must prove they have had a relationship with the childs father, most Dads are happy to pay a fair amount for a child that was wanted!

Allow both parents to claim CSA from the other

I am proposing the repeal of the paragraph in the CSA legislation which only allows a single claim to be considered for a single child.  This would also need the repeal of a great chunk of The Child Support ( Maintainance Calculations and Special Cases) Regulations, in order to remove the determination as to who was to be considered the NRP and the PWC based on Child Benefit, and replacing it with a situation where for a speciifc application the PWC was the claimant and the NRP was the other party where 50/50 shared care existed.

Doing this would discorage both parents from ever approaching the CSA in the first place where 50/50 shared care exists, as the net effect would be that money would go "both ways" cancelling itself out.

Why is this idea important?

I am proposing the repeal of the paragraph in the CSA legislation which only allows a single claim to be considered for a single child.  This would also need the repeal of a great chunk of The Child Support ( Maintainance Calculations and Special Cases) Regulations, in order to remove the determination as to who was to be considered the NRP and the PWC based on Child Benefit, and replacing it with a situation where for a speciifc application the PWC was the claimant and the NRP was the other party where 50/50 shared care existed.

Doing this would discorage both parents from ever approaching the CSA in the first place where 50/50 shared care exists, as the net effect would be that money would go "both ways" cancelling itself out.

Stop unfairness in Child Support CSA formula

If you have two parents who have separated, who each have 50/50 shared care of a child, the CSA still has to determine one of the parents to be the Parent with Care and the other parent to be the  Non Resident Parent under the legislation as it is currently drafted based on who gets Child Benefit.  This construction occurs in the The Child Support (Maintenance Calculations and Special Cases) Regulations 2000, Part 3, Para 8.

Child Benefit, is a universal benefit, which has an inherent *built in* priority to the mother, which therefore creates a distortion. 

The combination of these two is that you can have a situtation where the courts have awarded equal care, or majority care to the father, but due to the Child Benefit situation the father will still be considered to be the NRP by the CSA and will have to pay money, every week, to the mother.

My proposal is to remove Part 3, Para 8 (2) b (i) and (ii) which says:

(2) For the purposes of this special case a parent who provides day to day care for a child of his is to be treated as a non-resident parent for the purposes of the Act in the following circumstances –

(a) a parent who provides such care to a lesser extent than the other parent, person or persons who provide such care for the child in question; or

(b) where the persons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) include both parents and the circumstances are such that care is provided to the same extent by both but each provides care to an extent greater than or equal to any other person who provides such care for that child –

(i) the parent who is not in receipt of child benefit for the child in question; or

(ii) if neither parent is in receipt of child benefit for that child, the parent who, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, will not be the principal provider of day to day care for that child.

 

I am personally affected by this situation, as the father of a child who I have 50/50 shared care of on a week on week off basis.  I also have a 2nd child who lives with me 100% of the time, and yet even with all that (self employed currently losing money) still have to pay £5 per week.

The formula for 50/50 shared care could also be "corrected" from the current 7.5% less a % for other children, less £7 per week with a minimum of £5, however it would be cheaper to remove these cases from the CSA rather than have them in the CSA at a 0 assessment, and would probably be easier.

The alternative solution would be to direct the Child Benefit were allocated on a 6 monthly basis between the parents when 50/50 shared care exists which would take no legislation whatsoever and would remove the financial insentive to claim, however this would have certain costs to the universal CB.

Why is this idea important?

If you have two parents who have separated, who each have 50/50 shared care of a child, the CSA still has to determine one of the parents to be the Parent with Care and the other parent to be the  Non Resident Parent under the legislation as it is currently drafted based on who gets Child Benefit.  This construction occurs in the The Child Support (Maintenance Calculations and Special Cases) Regulations 2000, Part 3, Para 8.

Child Benefit, is a universal benefit, which has an inherent *built in* priority to the mother, which therefore creates a distortion. 

The combination of these two is that you can have a situtation where the courts have awarded equal care, or majority care to the father, but due to the Child Benefit situation the father will still be considered to be the NRP by the CSA and will have to pay money, every week, to the mother.

My proposal is to remove Part 3, Para 8 (2) b (i) and (ii) which says:

(2) For the purposes of this special case a parent who provides day to day care for a child of his is to be treated as a non-resident parent for the purposes of the Act in the following circumstances –

(a) a parent who provides such care to a lesser extent than the other parent, person or persons who provide such care for the child in question; or

(b) where the persons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) include both parents and the circumstances are such that care is provided to the same extent by both but each provides care to an extent greater than or equal to any other person who provides such care for that child –

(i) the parent who is not in receipt of child benefit for the child in question; or

(ii) if neither parent is in receipt of child benefit for that child, the parent who, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, will not be the principal provider of day to day care for that child.

 

I am personally affected by this situation, as the father of a child who I have 50/50 shared care of on a week on week off basis.  I also have a 2nd child who lives with me 100% of the time, and yet even with all that (self employed currently losing money) still have to pay £5 per week.

The formula for 50/50 shared care could also be "corrected" from the current 7.5% less a % for other children, less £7 per week with a minimum of £5, however it would be cheaper to remove these cases from the CSA rather than have them in the CSA at a 0 assessment, and would probably be easier.

The alternative solution would be to direct the Child Benefit were allocated on a 6 monthly basis between the parents when 50/50 shared care exists which would take no legislation whatsoever and would remove the financial insentive to claim, however this would have certain costs to the universal CB.

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

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 is this idea important?

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.

Change the CSA

My idea for the CSA is to make it farer for both parents, as the law stands at the moment it is based around the womans rights only and poor hard working innocent men are getting fleeced, what I would do is : change the way the calculations are calculated, lower the age of which the man needs to pay up until ( End of School 16) and openly encourage the child in question to seek employment, as the law stands at the moment the child is encouraged to go into further education on courses they have no interest in and the man has to pay until the child reaches the age of 19.

Why is this idea important?

My idea for the CSA is to make it farer for both parents, as the law stands at the moment it is based around the womans rights only and poor hard working innocent men are getting fleeced, what I would do is : change the way the calculations are calculated, lower the age of which the man needs to pay up until ( End of School 16) and openly encourage the child in question to seek employment, as the law stands at the moment the child is encouraged to go into further education on courses they have no interest in and the man has to pay until the child reaches the age of 19.

Responsibilty and Fairness in supporting children financially

I have had involvement with the CSA for 10 years! It has been the worst 10 years of my life dealing with their incompetence and their intransigence. It is one thing for a responsible parent to pay child support, but it is another matter when that parent is being persecuted and criminalised. I have paid and have wanted to pay, but bonus seeking staff have continually targeted me as a 'soft option', whilst failing to collect monies from feckless fathers who have NEVER paid to support their children.

For every £1 the CSA collects it costs £1.85. Billions spent on failed I.T. projects and millions on Executive pay of £250,000 plus bonuses and also staff bonuses.

Negotiation and mediation is the way forward. the carrot with the stick on hand for failing to comply. Re-draft the childrens act to incoporatea chapter on parental responsibility!

I have been through ridiculous costly complaints proceedures many times. My own M.P. supported my case to the PHSO and then collusion and corruption kicked in to thwart any hope of justice that I had. A scandal! 

I challenge Mr.Clegg to meet me as a prime example of how not to deal with responsible parents who pay and to discuss other more cost effective ways of ensuring that children are supported by their parents, whilst at the same time restoring parity in access to their children and restoring faith in a flawed system that has no place in our society, whatsoever!

Why is this idea important?

I have had involvement with the CSA for 10 years! It has been the worst 10 years of my life dealing with their incompetence and their intransigence. It is one thing for a responsible parent to pay child support, but it is another matter when that parent is being persecuted and criminalised. I have paid and have wanted to pay, but bonus seeking staff have continually targeted me as a 'soft option', whilst failing to collect monies from feckless fathers who have NEVER paid to support their children.

For every £1 the CSA collects it costs £1.85. Billions spent on failed I.T. projects and millions on Executive pay of £250,000 plus bonuses and also staff bonuses.

Negotiation and mediation is the way forward. the carrot with the stick on hand for failing to comply. Re-draft the childrens act to incoporatea chapter on parental responsibility!

I have been through ridiculous costly complaints proceedures many times. My own M.P. supported my case to the PHSO and then collusion and corruption kicked in to thwart any hope of justice that I had. A scandal! 

I challenge Mr.Clegg to meet me as a prime example of how not to deal with responsible parents who pay and to discuss other more cost effective ways of ensuring that children are supported by their parents, whilst at the same time restoring parity in access to their children and restoring faith in a flawed system that has no place in our society, whatsoever!