no human rights

Sir

Im 30 years old, and have paid my taxes and national insurance since the age of 16.

I have worked in the emergency services for almost ten years risking my life and doing what is ever asked of me, with out notice and without complaint.

My problem at the momemt is affecting my life in every aspect.

I made the mistake of having a sexual encounter with a woman for a matter of minutes, and i was told she fell pegnant. When this woman told me she missed a period, I explained to her that i didnt want the baby under any circumstances.and this was explained to her several times with my reasons.

I have now been contacted by the CSA who say i have to pay 20%of my earning for the next 20 years to this lady.

This will affect me massively, as i cant get a morgage, loans and car credit etc because i couldnt asfford it.

Im depressed, feeling suicidal, and cant get legal help because of the cost or the fact ive got a job.

The wamon involved is sending me message via facebook, mocking me, and saying im the unluciest sperm doner ever.

I also have further proof from messages she as sent me confirming that this was just a 5minute espisode that WILL ruin my life.

When i contacted the CSA i was told that it was "TOUGH!!" and it law that i must pay.

Ive never asked for anything in my life from the goverment, yet i dont have any rights, no opinion on this matter, and if i was a criminal,which ive never been i would get treated better with human rights.

For the next 20 years in my career i am expected to risk my life for others i do not know, or any further promotions i go for to greater my career i have to give a woman 20% of my hard work to something i have no control over or a voice to say i didnt want it!

SIR

in todays world how can that be right, i didnt want the child, the lady knew that yet im being punished it just not far!

To get my justice i have been told i would have to leave the country that i was born in that im proud to serve, the community i help and want nothing in return and i country that i have contributed all my life with national insurances and taxes.

I have

Why is this idea important?

Sir

Im 30 years old, and have paid my taxes and national insurance since the age of 16.

I have worked in the emergency services for almost ten years risking my life and doing what is ever asked of me, with out notice and without complaint.

My problem at the momemt is affecting my life in every aspect.

I made the mistake of having a sexual encounter with a woman for a matter of minutes, and i was told she fell pegnant. When this woman told me she missed a period, I explained to her that i didnt want the baby under any circumstances.and this was explained to her several times with my reasons.

I have now been contacted by the CSA who say i have to pay 20%of my earning for the next 20 years to this lady.

This will affect me massively, as i cant get a morgage, loans and car credit etc because i couldnt asfford it.

Im depressed, feeling suicidal, and cant get legal help because of the cost or the fact ive got a job.

The wamon involved is sending me message via facebook, mocking me, and saying im the unluciest sperm doner ever.

I also have further proof from messages she as sent me confirming that this was just a 5minute espisode that WILL ruin my life.

When i contacted the CSA i was told that it was "TOUGH!!" and it law that i must pay.

Ive never asked for anything in my life from the goverment, yet i dont have any rights, no opinion on this matter, and if i was a criminal,which ive never been i would get treated better with human rights.

For the next 20 years in my career i am expected to risk my life for others i do not know, or any further promotions i go for to greater my career i have to give a woman 20% of my hard work to something i have no control over or a voice to say i didnt want it!

SIR

in todays world how can that be right, i didnt want the child, the lady knew that yet im being punished it just not far!

To get my justice i have been told i would have to leave the country that i was born in that im proud to serve, the community i help and want nothing in return and i country that i have contributed all my life with national insurances and taxes.

I have

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 ..

Two Tier CSA

There is a two tier system with the CSA and related child maintenance orders (before 03/2003 and after). The older system has considerably higher maintenance requirements than the new system. This is only based on the date the individual claim was made, all other variables can be equal. Equally, court-based child maintenance orders based on CSA calculations obviously work the same way. I'm sure there must be cases within days of the wrong side of this 'step-change'.

Why is this idea important?

There is a two tier system with the CSA and related child maintenance orders (before 03/2003 and after). The older system has considerably higher maintenance requirements than the new system. This is only based on the date the individual claim was made, all other variables can be equal. Equally, court-based child maintenance orders based on CSA calculations obviously work the same way. I'm sure there must be cases within days of the wrong side of this 'step-change'.

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.

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!

Child Maintenance Calculations (CSA)

reduce the upper limit (currently £3000 per week) at which point the non resident parents earnings are disregarded for the calculation of child maintenance; or

reach sensible figure  which is the upper limit of costs for which child maintenance is payable.

comment.

child maintenance is currently payable at rates that do not reflect what it really costs to bring up a child. the figures allowed are excessive. this is an injustice and merely serves to enhance the financial staus of the parent with care of the child

Why is this idea important?

reduce the upper limit (currently £3000 per week) at which point the non resident parents earnings are disregarded for the calculation of child maintenance; or

reach sensible figure  which is the upper limit of costs for which child maintenance is payable.

comment.

child maintenance is currently payable at rates that do not reflect what it really costs to bring up a child. the figures allowed are excessive. this is an injustice and merely serves to enhance the financial staus of the parent with care of the child

csa

set a maximum amount payable  this should take in to account what a non parent earns,  people still have a right to live their lives without struggling to pay for their children.  The CSA are a law to themselves   people need help.

Why is this idea important?

set a maximum amount payable  this should take in to account what a non parent earns,  people still have a right to live their lives without struggling to pay for their children.  The CSA are a law to themselves   people need help.

Restrict the irresponsible power wielded by C.M.E.C. (formerly C.S.A.)

Restrict the way in which C.M.E.C. (C.S.A.) are allowed to act in the name of protecting children with no consideration or responsiblity for the wilful destruction of families, acting above the law, protecting themselves by the very laws they created, using abusive and bullying behaviour, criminalising parents, restricting their movements, imposing DEO's with no regard, destroying the family unit. Individual circumstances are not taken into account and C.M.E.C. instead of resolving issues would rather quote regulation and resolve nothing.

Review each case on its merits, not stupid regulation put in place to protect C.M.E.C. and interprete as they see fit. There are many parents who have genuine reasons for the circumstances in which they find themselves, C.M.E.C. in their pursuit of officious interpretation and regulation with the ability ignore appeals, have by there actions caused the deaths of more than 60 people, in any other civilised society they would be charged with man slaughter

Why is this idea important?

Restrict the way in which C.M.E.C. (C.S.A.) are allowed to act in the name of protecting children with no consideration or responsiblity for the wilful destruction of families, acting above the law, protecting themselves by the very laws they created, using abusive and bullying behaviour, criminalising parents, restricting their movements, imposing DEO's with no regard, destroying the family unit. Individual circumstances are not taken into account and C.M.E.C. instead of resolving issues would rather quote regulation and resolve nothing.

Review each case on its merits, not stupid regulation put in place to protect C.M.E.C. and interprete as they see fit. There are many parents who have genuine reasons for the circumstances in which they find themselves, C.M.E.C. in their pursuit of officious interpretation and regulation with the ability ignore appeals, have by there actions caused the deaths of more than 60 people, in any other civilised society they would be charged with man slaughter

Judges have hands tied

If the CSA wrongly asses you and then take you to court because you havent paid for whatever reason the Judge is NOT allowed to question how, why or where from the figure they say you owe has come from.  If they get it wrong it is tuff they say you owe it so you must pay!!!

Why is this idea important?

If the CSA wrongly asses you and then take you to court because you havent paid for whatever reason the Judge is NOT allowed to question how, why or where from the figure they say you owe has come from.  If they get it wrong it is tuff they say you owe it so you must pay!!!

Repeal the Child Support Act

The Child Support Act 1991 (Amended 2008)  Is  an oppressive and draconian piece of legislation, and in direct contravention of The Human rights Act,  The European Convention on Human Rights and the Universal declaration of Human Rights.  The government has no business interfering in family life.  This legislation and the corrupt run for profit company that enforces it have ruined the lives of parents, children and families.   It has forced innocent, law abiding people into poverty, destitution and suicide.  It has created more problems than it has solved.  All the while Mr Steven Geraghty  sleeps tightly at night with his, deficit crunching, £250,000 + wages to keep him warm.

Families should be left to reach agreements without government interference.  If they cannot then it should be decided in a courtroom in an un-biased, fair and impartial way.

If the coalition wants to give back freedom.  This is a good starting point!

Why is this idea important?

The Child Support Act 1991 (Amended 2008)  Is  an oppressive and draconian piece of legislation, and in direct contravention of The Human rights Act,  The European Convention on Human Rights and the Universal declaration of Human Rights.  The government has no business interfering in family life.  This legislation and the corrupt run for profit company that enforces it have ruined the lives of parents, children and families.   It has forced innocent, law abiding people into poverty, destitution and suicide.  It has created more problems than it has solved.  All the while Mr Steven Geraghty  sleeps tightly at night with his, deficit crunching, £250,000 + wages to keep him warm.

Families should be left to reach agreements without government interference.  If they cannot then it should be decided in a courtroom in an un-biased, fair and impartial way.

If the coalition wants to give back freedom.  This is a good starting point!

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.

A fairer Child Support Agency or scrap it

There is a system to be played with the CSA and if you know how to play it you can get away with it. They have NO power to deal with those who refuse to co-operate. For those who do co-operate they sting you for it – there is just no fairness. They are mightily inefficient – too many errors are made. Either give the CSA the powers to make it fairer or scrap it.

Why is this idea important?

There is a system to be played with the CSA and if you know how to play it you can get away with it. They have NO power to deal with those who refuse to co-operate. For those who do co-operate they sting you for it – there is just no fairness. They are mightily inefficient – too many errors are made. Either give the CSA the powers to make it fairer or scrap it.

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. 

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.

In contented claims, Pay Child Benefit to the Parent with the lowest income

This is not a repeal of legislation.  It requires a change of policy only, which is in effect a ministerial directive.

At the moment when a contended claim (two parents claiming for the same child) comes along, there is a "no change" policy, unless the claiming parent has IN EXCESS of 50% of the time.

Thus, the mother (due to the fact that she will have been getting it when the couple were living together by means of the order of priority) will continue to receive child benefit in the vast majority of cases, even when 50/50 shared care exists.  Which then means that the father will be considered the NRP for the purposes of the CSA.  (Interestingly, both government departments blame each other for this)

Now my proposal is simple.  Remove the "no change" rule, and instead pay Child Benefit to the parent who had the LOWER income for the % of care they have.  As Child Benefit is administered by HMRC this should not be a major burden, and it only needs to be done for contended claims.

The formula would be:

(Claimant 1's Income x percentage of care) <> (Claimant 2's Income x percentage of care)

and then paying the claimant with the lower income. to care.

 

This would have very little "cost" effect.  The reason is that if the 2nd claimant had a higher income than the first claimant for the amount of care, or a lower amount of care, they would not apply and contend the claim (as they would not stand a chance of winning).

Why is this idea important?

This is not a repeal of legislation.  It requires a change of policy only, which is in effect a ministerial directive.

At the moment when a contended claim (two parents claiming for the same child) comes along, there is a "no change" policy, unless the claiming parent has IN EXCESS of 50% of the time.

Thus, the mother (due to the fact that she will have been getting it when the couple were living together by means of the order of priority) will continue to receive child benefit in the vast majority of cases, even when 50/50 shared care exists.  Which then means that the father will be considered the NRP for the purposes of the CSA.  (Interestingly, both government departments blame each other for this)

Now my proposal is simple.  Remove the "no change" rule, and instead pay Child Benefit to the parent who had the LOWER income for the % of care they have.  As Child Benefit is administered by HMRC this should not be a major burden, and it only needs to be done for contended claims.

The formula would be:

(Claimant 1's Income x percentage of care) <> (Claimant 2's Income x percentage of care)

and then paying the claimant with the lower income. to care.

 

This would have very little "cost" effect.  The reason is that if the 2nd claimant had a higher income than the first claimant for the amount of care, or a lower amount of care, they would not apply and contend the claim (as they would not stand a chance of winning).

CSA: more power or ditch it!

I have had the unfortunate experience of dealing with the CSA re: a dispute over monthly payments involving my daughter.  And i can tell you catagorically that the CSA should either be ditched or given a whole load of POWER! For those mothers who have and continue to work with the CSA (because there is no other choice) it is the most sole destroying and demoralising experience.  As a  taxpayer I want to know why this organisation still exists and what is going to be done about it?

Why is this idea important?

I have had the unfortunate experience of dealing with the CSA re: a dispute over monthly payments involving my daughter.  And i can tell you catagorically that the CSA should either be ditched or given a whole load of POWER! For those mothers who have and continue to work with the CSA (because there is no other choice) it is the most sole destroying and demoralising experience.  As a  taxpayer I want to know why this organisation still exists and what is going to be done about it?

The CSA need more powers to obtain information from self-employed parents

The Child Support Agency is a much needed agency and appears to be successful in straight forward cases, where the non-resident parent is not self-employed.  If the non-resident parent refuses to pay maintainance, then the agency can by pass the non-resident parent and contact their employer directly for the relevant information.  In these cases a calculation can be made and maintenance payments are deducted directly from the non-resident parent's wages.

However, as with my own experience, the situation is much more complicated if the non-resident parent is self-employed.  My ex partner was a partner in two limited companies.  The CSA have been involved in the case for 8 months but so far to little avail.  As my ex partner was his own employer, the CSA did not have the option to deduct payments directly from his wages.  Although when I first contacted the CSA last December they informed me that legal proceedings would be initiated if my ex partner failed to supply the necessary information and failed to make payments.  However it would appear that the CSA are limited by red tape and the law seems to be on the side of non paying non-resident parent.

It is a common misconception that the CSA has strong links with the Inland Revenue, when in fact they are not connected at all.  I suggest that a step in this direction would me most helpful to the CSA when dealing with non-compliant self-employed non-resident parents.

 

Why is this idea important?

The Child Support Agency is a much needed agency and appears to be successful in straight forward cases, where the non-resident parent is not self-employed.  If the non-resident parent refuses to pay maintainance, then the agency can by pass the non-resident parent and contact their employer directly for the relevant information.  In these cases a calculation can be made and maintenance payments are deducted directly from the non-resident parent's wages.

However, as with my own experience, the situation is much more complicated if the non-resident parent is self-employed.  My ex partner was a partner in two limited companies.  The CSA have been involved in the case for 8 months but so far to little avail.  As my ex partner was his own employer, the CSA did not have the option to deduct payments directly from his wages.  Although when I first contacted the CSA last December they informed me that legal proceedings would be initiated if my ex partner failed to supply the necessary information and failed to make payments.  However it would appear that the CSA are limited by red tape and the law seems to be on the side of non paying non-resident parent.

It is a common misconception that the CSA has strong links with the Inland Revenue, when in fact they are not connected at all.  I suggest that a step in this direction would me most helpful to the CSA when dealing with non-compliant self-employed non-resident parents.

 

CSA Powers

I feel that the system needs reforming. It does not take account of my financial commitments, (how much it costs me to go to work, petrol, car parking charges) my maintanance payments are seen as more important than my other children or paying my mortgage. The CSA has no proof that the parent with care spends that money on the child, The CSA could issue vouchers to pay for the child food, clothes, swimming lessons etc., on my behalf.

 

 When I was in arrears I asked to pay in installments, I had to pay 70% of my weekly income, I feel that this was grossly unfair especially as when the parent with care owed me money she only had her money reduced by £4 a week, and I had to adjust my standing order.

 

I also feel that it is unfair that if I earn more than my partner, but we are still entittled to working tax credit that the total household income is taken into account when working out my payments. This means that the parent with care potentially is getting full tax credit entittlement and  maintanance, and the other family is significantly financially worse off.

 

I feel that the payments should be based on the parent without cares annual income only divided by 52 and that it should be reviewed annually.  I also feel that an allowance should be made for the costs incurred by getting to work. I also feel that the CSA should ensure that the amount to be paid is spent on the child directly, and that the child be made aware that the parent without care is responsibly contributing to thier upbringing.

Why is this idea important?

I feel that the system needs reforming. It does not take account of my financial commitments, (how much it costs me to go to work, petrol, car parking charges) my maintanance payments are seen as more important than my other children or paying my mortgage. The CSA has no proof that the parent with care spends that money on the child, The CSA could issue vouchers to pay for the child food, clothes, swimming lessons etc., on my behalf.

 

 When I was in arrears I asked to pay in installments, I had to pay 70% of my weekly income, I feel that this was grossly unfair especially as when the parent with care owed me money she only had her money reduced by £4 a week, and I had to adjust my standing order.

 

I also feel that it is unfair that if I earn more than my partner, but we are still entittled to working tax credit that the total household income is taken into account when working out my payments. This means that the parent with care potentially is getting full tax credit entittlement and  maintanance, and the other family is significantly financially worse off.

 

I feel that the payments should be based on the parent without cares annual income only divided by 52 and that it should be reviewed annually.  I also feel that an allowance should be made for the costs incurred by getting to work. I also feel that the CSA should ensure that the amount to be paid is spent on the child directly, and that the child be made aware that the parent without care is responsibly contributing to thier upbringing.

Child support Agency

I would like the law looked at and scrapped that allows the CSA not to take into account a parent with cares salary. My ex partner is an agency social worker and has an income of around £700 per week plus child benefit and tax credits which will prob push up to £800 per week (I think its tax credit but not 100% sure) The CSA will not take any of her salary into account in looking after our daughter. I dont mind at all contributing to my daughter but it should be 100% shared financially and not placed 100% on the absent parent.

 

Sorry I hope all the spelling are correct as it would not copy into a word doc.

Why is this idea important?

I would like the law looked at and scrapped that allows the CSA not to take into account a parent with cares salary. My ex partner is an agency social worker and has an income of around £700 per week plus child benefit and tax credits which will prob push up to £800 per week (I think its tax credit but not 100% sure) The CSA will not take any of her salary into account in looking after our daughter. I dont mind at all contributing to my daughter but it should be 100% shared financially and not placed 100% on the absent parent.

 

Sorry I hope all the spelling are correct as it would not copy into a word doc.

Abolish the CSA

This organisation is costing the tax payer a lot of money with very little return. They are also tearing families apart rather than "supporting" the Children.

Why is this idea important?

This organisation is costing the tax payer a lot of money with very little return. They are also tearing families apart rather than "supporting" the Children.

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. 

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.

CSA & Benefits

Benefit rates are paid at a fixed amount based on a minimum required for day to day expenses and a little extra on top. Single parents who don't give details of absent parents should have a deduction of 10% of income support/JSA. This way, less is paid for no co-operation thus reducing benefits paid and where co-operation IS made, the absent parent loses £5 of benefit or a percentage of their salary and as any absent parent pursued by the CSA knows all too well, the PWC (parent with care) gets £80 a month as they are in receipt of benefits and the rest goes 'back into the system'

Why is this idea important?

Benefit rates are paid at a fixed amount based on a minimum required for day to day expenses and a little extra on top. Single parents who don't give details of absent parents should have a deduction of 10% of income support/JSA. This way, less is paid for no co-operation thus reducing benefits paid and where co-operation IS made, the absent parent loses £5 of benefit or a percentage of their salary and as any absent parent pursued by the CSA knows all too well, the PWC (parent with care) gets £80 a month as they are in receipt of benefits and the rest goes 'back into the system'

Get rid of the CSA

I am appealing the the new government to urgently close the CSA. This is a loss making maverick organisation that that has no place in our society and is costing billions to run. 

It is a tool employed to punish Non Resident Parents.

It has abused the many powers vested and added on to it – I will provide evidence of this if requested.

We have a perfectly good judicial system that couples have to use when divorcing and in that there is a financial settlement so why not get a court binding order that covers the welfare of the children. Why make this a seperate state issue that is being abused by parents with care.

The CSA take no notice of agreements entered into by partners and have too much power vested in low ranking staff. Powers that only a magistrates court can revoke.

I have made representation to my local MP but nothing much has happened.

I have a file of facts and reports to back my appeal and will share this with relevent authorities if wanted.

Why is this idea important?

I am appealing the the new government to urgently close the CSA. This is a loss making maverick organisation that that has no place in our society and is costing billions to run. 

It is a tool employed to punish Non Resident Parents.

It has abused the many powers vested and added on to it – I will provide evidence of this if requested.

We have a perfectly good judicial system that couples have to use when divorcing and in that there is a financial settlement so why not get a court binding order that covers the welfare of the children. Why make this a seperate state issue that is being abused by parents with care.

The CSA take no notice of agreements entered into by partners and have too much power vested in low ranking staff. Powers that only a magistrates court can revoke.

I have made representation to my local MP but nothing much has happened.

I have a file of facts and reports to back my appeal and will share this with relevent authorities if wanted.