CSA gone mad

[Sparkle]

Not to imply that they were ever sane however.
Just another fine example of the kind of work this shambolic organisation does for us.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-baby-see.html

However, I don't think this case is much different from many cases where the girl gets pregnant, decides to leave the guy for a younger model, and yet the "biological father" is left to foot the bill until the child has grown up.

I think in cases like this, the father's role should be viewed the same as if the mother-to-be had gone to a sperm bank and became pregnant.

Sometimes this country really disgusts me.

---------- Post added at 08:50 ---------- Previous post was at 08:42 ----------

And what is up with people?

From the comments :

who is responsible for fathering the child?.........he should pay for its upbringing whether or not he has access.
- harlequin, lancashire, 12/4/2011 6:49
Click to rate Rating 299

If you father a child you pay for it. This is a simple case. However there is no reason to allow surrogate mothers in the first place. This incident ought never to have been allowed. There are many children awaiting good parents why not adopt one? Do not complain for paying for what is yours!
- Independent , ESSEX. , 12/4/2011 7:02
Click to rate Rating 320

I struggle for the life of me to understand how people can be this ignorant.

[dilli-theclaw]

Originally Posted by Sparkle

I struggle for the life of me to understand how people can be this ignorant.

These people read the daily Fail / Nazi and yet you struggle to understand how they can be so ignorant?

[Gary L]

Does he lose any rights if he doesn't pay?

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by dilligaf1701

These people read the daily Fail / Nazi and yet you struggle to understand how they can be so ignorant?

You are talking about a couple of comments on a free website. The red coloured rating indicates that others disapprove of the comment, which disproves your ridiculous comment. It is not possible to judge the comments made on the websites of 'The Guardian' or 'The Independent', as they have a tendency to not publish(ie censor) certain stories in the first place.

It's strange how the 'right to family life' in the Human Rights Act, suddenly doesn't apply when not dealing with a criminal.

When women have children placed in care or put up for adoption, they do not pay anything towards their upkeep. Why are men forced to pay out in similar circumstances(ie no contact).

[dilli-theclaw]

Originally Posted by nomadking

which disproves your ridiculous comment

No it doesn't. As much as you'd love it to I'm sure.

[Gary L]

I think it proves that there's 'normal' and 'not normal' people that read the Daily Mail. I don't know what you would call those that don't read it though.

---------- Post added at 10:05 ---------- Previous post was at 09:48 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

When women have children placed in care or put up for adoption, they do not pay anything towards their upkeep. Why are men forced to pay out in similar circumstances(ie no contact).

Good point.
I suppose the question with this case is, does she have the right to change her mind about giving the baby to the couple. if she did and her and the father agreed to access. then we would probably expect him to pay money for the child.

it does say that the father later relinquished his contact rights because he said it would be too difficult emotionally and that it was unfair for the baby to be split between two homes.

which in a way goes against him by he wants all or nothing.

I think it would be different if the 'mother' denied him rights to see the child and he was expected to pay the money.

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Gary L

I suppose the question with this case is, does she have the right to change her mind about giving the baby to the couple.

I think that indeed is the question.
Personally, I don't think she should have the right to change her mind unless she's prepared to have an abortion. She's only carrying this man's baby because of a promise she made, and by reneging that promise has dragged an unsuspecting father-to-be into fatherhood with a strange woman instead of his wife. Talk about a dream turning into a nightmare !

Any woman can walk into a sperm bank and the sperm donor isn't held liable, even though he's the biological father.
If a man wants to be a dad he has no choice but to find a surrogate mother and pay a fortune in the process. Hardly fair. I bet if it were the other way around, and it were men who carried the child, women would be able to apply for government grant(s) to pay for a surrogate dad to carry the child ! Oh, and any promise made would be legally binding too !

I think the whole situation is a mess. Any agreement should be legally binding, imo. When was the last time you heard about a dad who donated to a sperm bank, suddenly changing his mind and then gaining custody of the child? Even in cases when the child would've been better off, and if the dad wanted custody - it doesn't happen. So I don't really see why it should be different for the surrogate mother.

Also, it shouldn't be so one sided. It takes two to make a baby, and a woman isn't more entitled to be a mum is than a man is to be a dad.
So, either get rid of the sperm banks or levy an extra fee on them to subsidise the cost for dads to pay for a surrogate mother.

---------- Post added at 10:44 ---------- Previous post was at 10:28 ----------

Not all bad on the DM comments:

He has fathered a child, a child he has now deserted and refuses to take responsibility for.Thank God the CSA at least means he cannot avoid his financial responsibilities. - storygirl, hexham Northumberland, 12/4/2011 09:30 --------------------------- Where in the land of all that is good and wholesome did you get that from??!? He fathered a child with a surrogate female, who was suppose to hand the child over to the man and his partner but instead decided to keep the child. Having received nearly £5,000 already, she is now to receive over £500 per month in child maintenance from the man for the chiild's upkeep, when in fact the child should be with the man and his partner. It's unfair, very unfair, I'm bemused as to how the judge can give such a decision. Which part of the article was you reading?!
- Joseph Felts, London, England, 12/4/2011 10:08
Click to rate Rating 27

Joseph Felts said it pretty well. I'm curious as to what on earth is going through Storygirl's mind?

Personally I think the dangers of surrogacy outweigh it's benefits..

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Personally I think the dangers of surrogacy outweigh it's benefits..

I agree ,shouldn't be allowed

I thought the CSA was being shut down or has that been put on the back burner

I think this woman is evil ,plain and simple ,she is using children as a source of income to avoid getting a job

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by martyh

I thought the CSA was being shut down or has that been put on the back burner

Its been rebadged as the CMEC (care and maintenance enforcement commission). Don't be fooled, its the same as the CSA, but with new powers.
They include:
electronic tagging,
confiscation of driver's license and passport
imposing of curfews,
additional powers granted to debt collectors agencies to recover funds owed (I believe greater powers to enter a premise, but don't quote me).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6174671.stm

Also, whereas the CSA payment was based on the net salary (i.e. after tax), CMEC works on a fixed percentage of the GROSS salary !!
No kidding, so the higher you earn - the less you get (due to higher tax bracket) but the more you pay.

http://www.nacsa.co.uk/index.php?opt...=84&Itemid=110

I now see they've reduced the rate, I read last year it was 20% gross income for 1 child ! I can only assume they had to back down on that rate.

CMEC is CSA with teeth, but they still won't chase the dads who don't pay as it costs too much in legal fees. They'll got after the those who have careers and do pay, as they've always done.

Originally Posted by Sparkle

Its been rebadged as the CMEC (care and maintenance enforcement commission). Don't be fooled, its the same as the CSA, but with new powers.
They include:
electronic tagging,
confiscation of driver's license and passport
imposing of curfews,
additional powers granted to debt collectors agencies to recover funds owed (I believe greater powers to enter a premise, but don't quote me).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6174671.stm

Also, whereas the CSA payment was based on the net salary (i.e. after tax), CMEC works on a fixed percentage of the GROSS salary !!
No kidding, so the higher you earn - the less you get (due to higher tax bracket) but the more you pay.

http://www.nacsa.co.uk/index.php?opt...=84&Itemid=110

I now see they've reduced the rate, I read last year it was 20% gross income for 1 child ! I can only assume they had to back down on that rate.

CMEC is CSA with teeth, but they still won't chase the dads who don't pay as it costs too much in legal fees. They'll got after the those who have careers and do pay, as they've always done.

Bloody hell that sounds terrifying ,pleased i've had the job done

[mertle]

Sparkle so basically there powers so great they more like the Russian Police. When will they be given power to shoot you or throw you in jail.

Its completel disgusting talk about your rights each case are different in the real world people split it happens. In some cases the parties can look after IE support the child. In many cases they cant but still have to give maintenance whether the other party is financially secure.

The fact is always been 1 way ticket never the women fault if she takes the kids away its still the mans fault even if she was the perpetrator.

I think the sooner the whole thing gets scrapped the better. NICE idea which goes way beyond and SO unfare its criminal. If they cant set it up to be fair then dont do it at all.

[Sparkle]

For years its often been said that the CSA have greater powers than the police, it's the truth.

The scary part is that the person wielding it is none other than a social worker, or someone with no formal qualifications working in a call centre somewhere, and yet they're playing God with people's lives.

The internet is abound with threads by NRPs who are seeking help because a vindictive ex has conned them out of tens of thousands of pounds over an extended period of time. A common example seems to be a split mortgage, where he was paying in cash (as child support) but little record exists.
Ten years goes by and she tells the CSA that the NRP hasn't made any payments, they take her word on it and he's being chased for £18K or thereabouts - it happens. Some people really are vile individuals.

The CMEC can also force you to sell your house and move into a flat (they pocket the difference), I believe the CSA had this power too, but due to fear of a public backlash they seem to use these powers sparingly.

The CSA/CMEC is the devils spawn, they go after the easy targets.

However, one good thing I can say about the CMEC is that they have said that they actively encourage parents to make their own financial arrangements, and also all moneys paid will go to the other parent. Until recently, the dad paid a fixed fee and if she was signing on only some of that money would go to the mother - the rest to the treasury. This is part of the reason the CSA would use unscrupulous tactics to get dads on the system - to extract as much money as possible. The problem is, its the good dads who are paying for the indiscretions of the bad ones ! Which isn't fair.
The CSA have even been recorded advising NRP's to use credit cards to pay money owed (which is illegal), only adding to debt problems.

Never call the CSA/CMEC without recording the call - they will lie and have been caught out numerous times. Some recordings have been put on youtube.

There was a case I saw on a documentary about a year ago (panorama maybe?), where a pensioner had his pension funds confiscated by the CSA. Apparently a young girl had said he was the father of her child, the CSA maintained they sent out a letter to the pensioner giving him so many days to reply otherwise they would assume him to be the father. Apparently he didn't get that letter, and of course he wasn't the dad.

Also, lots of horror stories of the CSA even admitting that they've overcharged many thousands of pounds, and it takes years (if ever) to claw any of that money back.

---------- Post added at 14:46 ---------- Previous post was at 14:39 ----------

Another common horror story is when the dad is a contactor. To calculate how much you can afford to pay, they ask to see the last 6 months wage slips. They'll pick the month where you did the most overtime, in some professions this could be double or triple the earnings of othe months. They'll then use that month to work out your monthly CSA payments. The quite months were you cannot afford to pay it will end up as debt, which they'll chase you for indefinitely.

[mertle]

Sparkle scary stuff indeed yes loads horror stories of wrong acusations.

Thats why it should be scrapped completely for all its good it has infenate more errors. I wonder if those errors caused marriage break ups.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by mertle

I wonder if those errors caused marriage break ups.

Or even assault, hospitalisation and suicide.