Jail for non-compliant women

[Russ]

Originally Posted by erol

However spreading false information does nothing constructive for futher this cause imo.

I misunderstood, so shoot me.

[erol]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Do the CSA go after absent mothers?

I think they do but I guess the situation is rare in the extreme (first that the father gets custody and not the mother and secondly that the mother does not pay support for the child). My perception of the CSA and it's main problem is they concentrate their efforts on 'easy' targets and let the real abusers get away - as they are hard and expensive to catch vs just hammering the 'honest' partners that are liable for support payments.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

But if the woman was on 30K why did she get the CSA on her case?Why would she be claiming benefits?I'm not having a go I just want to understand why the CSA were involved.

The woman on 30k isn't on benifits, that was a totally seperate situation.

The 30K woman (lets call her Carol) is a messed up woman, she's always wanted (lets call him Dave) since she was a pupil of his.
She saw his wife as having the life she wanted and used their daughter as a weapon against Dave. Dave at the time was claiming he'd had the affair for 3 years, not 11.
He did something to upset Carol, so she contacted the CSA hoping they would increase the £500 a month he was already paying her (private agreement), CSA contacted Dave's wife (my friend) and wanted to take her income into account so that if she was earning a lot, Dave would have to pay more. Thankfully the CSA deemed £400 was the amount he should pay, so it backfired on Carol.

Originally Posted by incog

Yes I agree about the wife but you know this is what happens to second wives.Their income is included in the decision of how much a husband has to pay in alimony to a first wife and children.

Incog.

Ah! Defiant got there before me.

I feel that it shouldn't be like that.
Why should you pay for another couple's kids?

[erol]

Originally Posted by Russ D

I misunderstood, so shoot me.

Like I said originaly Russ I was not having a go. I just think with issues as emotive as these it's important to get the facts straight, thats all.

[Julian]

afaik the earned income of the parent with care is not included in the calculation.

check out the calculator - here

It makes no mention of the income of the parent with care.

[Defiant]

Originally Posted by erol

I think they do but I guess the situation is rare in the extreme (first that the father gets custody and not the mother and secondly that the mother does not pay support for the child). My perception of the CSA and it's main problem is they concentrate their efforts on 'easy' targets and let the real abusers get away - as they are hard and expensive to catch vs just hammering the 'honest' partners that are liable for support payments.

When I got my son I had to fill out x amount of forms. One of these forms was a CSA one. I asked why am I filling this out are you going after her. The women there admitted its very unlikely. I just laughed I'm had them on my back so long I knew the score and always thought there sexiest

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Julian

Trouble is m8 the dss treat the absent parent's payments through the csa as income, so they deduct it from your benefit payments.

I was the parent with care in my case as my then wife left me with our children to bring up. I had to quit my job to do that.

Now I see

It's stupid, the payments made are supposed to be for the benifit of the child, therefore it's the child's income, not the custody holders.
If someone isn't on benifit, then their child gets more.

[erol]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Now I see

It's stupid, the payments made are supposed to be for the benifit of the child, therefore it's the child's income, not the custody holders.
If someone isn't on benifit, then their child gets more.

If the state is paying someone benefits to support a child and they subsequently get the missing partner to pay support for the child, then it seems right to me that they either stop the benefits or carry on the benefits and take the child support? Or have I missed something here?

[Julian]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Now I see

It's stupid, the payments made are supposed to be for the benifit of the child, therefore it's the child's income, not the custody holders.
If someone isn't on benifit, then their child gets more.

Tell me about it m8... I would rather they had put it into a trust fund for the children which they could use for further education or something like that.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by erol

If the state is paying someone benefits to support a child and they subsequently get the missing partner to pay support for the child, then it seems right to me that they either stop the benefits or carry on the benefits and take the child support? Or have I missed something here?

They get benifits for being unable to work, such as housing benifit, unemployment benifit, council tax relief, and the £10 (or what ever it is now) a week child benifit.
The majority of those benifit £ÃÆ ’‚£Ãà¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚£ are there for the adult to be able to live, not for the child.
The CSA says that the father should pay £400 a month for the child.
But the mother's benifits are taken out of that, so either the child gets the £400 and the mother has no benifits, or the mother uses some of the £400 to simply live, and the child then gets less than £400, less than what the CSA has deemed the child needs per month to have a good standard of living.

[erol]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

They get benifits for being unable to work, such as housing benifit, unemployment benifit, council tax relief, and the £10 (or what ever it is now) a week child benifit.

Well housing benefit is as much for the child as parent I guess. Child support is not means tested - its just paid to all parents (I think). However people with low incomes and children will get additional child support on top of this standard allowance paid to all.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

The majority of those benifit £ÃÆ ’‚£Ãà¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚£ are there for the adult to be able to live, not for the child.
The CSA says that the father should pay £400 a month for the child.
But the mother's benifits are taken out of that, so either the child gets the £400 and the mother has no benifits, or the mother uses some of the £400 to simply live, and the child then gets less than £400, less than what the CSA has deemed the child needs per month to have a good standard of living.

I may be wrong but my understanding is that the amount the absent parent pays is not determined based on 'what the child needs' but on what the state determins is apporiate for the absent parent to pay based on their income. Earn loads and you pay more. That does not mean that a child of a rich absent parent needs more money than one of a poor absent parent.

If you imagine a person leaving their super rich partner and taking their child. Initally the rich partner pays nothing. So the state steps in to help support both the parent and the child (cheaper and better than taking the child into care). Then the missing rich parent starts to cough up £2000 a week in child maintance (to pluck a figure out of the air). You think in such a situation the state should continue to pay support to the parent with the child?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by erol

Well housing benefit is as much for the child as parent I guess. Child support is not means tested - its just paid to all parents (I think). However people with low incomes and children will get additional child support on top of this standard allowance paid to all.

But the person gets the same housing benifit if childless. It's not because they have a child.

Originally Posted by erol

I may be wrong but my understanding is that the amount the absent parent pays is not determined based on 'what the child needs' but on what the state determins is apporiate for the absent parent to pay based on their income. Earn loads and you pay more. That does not mean that a child of a rich absent parent needs more money than one of a poor absent parent.

If you imagine a person leaving their super rich partner and taking their child. Initally the rich partner pays nothing. So the state steps in to help support both the parent and the child (cheaper and better than taking the child into care). Then the missing rich parent starts to cough up £2000 a week in child maintance (to pluck a figure out of the air). You think in such a situation the state should continue to pay support to the parent with the child?

There's a max amount, which is why Chris Evans despite having millions pays less than 6000 a year for his daughter.
The CSA money is for the sole purpose of the child, not the parent.
Other benifits are there to support the parent, benifits which they would be entitled too even if they didn't have a child, so why should they lose those benifits when the CSA money isn't for them, but their child, meaning they have to use their child's money to live on, depriving the child.
A woman on benifit getting £400 a month CSA will have less than £400 a month to spend on her child.
A woman earning £20K and not on benifit will have the £400 CSA to spend on her child

[Marge]

My experience has generally been that mums who have the kids living with them treat the absent dad in an horrendous way. It's either cough up more money or swing from trees or you don't get to see the kids. Dads usually have to go along with loads of crap just so they can see the kids which is crazy. Kids are treated as bargaining tools and it's about time this was stopped.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Debsy42

My experience has generally been that mums who have the kids living with them treat the absent dad in an horrendous way. It's either cough up more money or swing from trees or you don't get to see the kids. Dads usually have to go along with loads of crap just so they can see the kids which is crazy. Kids are treated as bargaining tools and it's about time this was stopped.

Totally agree Debs
That's how Carol used her child with Dave (mentioned earlier, names changed)
It would be "do as I tell you or you don't see your daughter"

[Marge]

Just off the top off my head I know two of my friends who are having the problem now with ex's and demands for money or you're not seeing the kids. In both cases the ex has laughed at the thought of the court forcing access......