Jail for non-compliant women

[erol]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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

Not sure about that. Someone on housing benefit with 6 kids must get more than a lone adult surely?

Originally Posted by Xaccers

There's a max amount, which is why Chris Evans despite having millions pays less than 6000 a year for his daughter.

OK I was not aware of such a cap (or that Chris Evans had a child ). I see what you are saying and kinda agree with it but it's not quite a simple as it seems. For a start a lone adult with a child, that needs it, will get more benefit than a lone adult without a child. So certainly it seems fair to me that such benefits (the extra for the child) should be 'discounted' against the child support payment from the absent parent.

Originally Posted by Debsy42

Kids are treated as bargaining tools and it's about time this was stopped.

I think everyone would agree with this but I guess the real question is how do you stop acrimonious parents using the kids in such a way?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by erol

Not sure about that. Someone on housing benefit with 6 kids must get more than a lone adult surely?

Only in that they'll get more rent paid due to the larger house that's required.
And more council tax paid as with a larger house it's likely to be in a higher band.
Nothing related to having kids.

Child benifit and CSA gives more for the first kid than any subsiquent kids.
So with CSA, the first kid gets £400 for instance, the second and third get £250 each (example)

Originally Posted by erol

OK I was not aware of such a cap (or that Chris Evans had a child ). I see what you are saying and kinda agree with it but it's not quite a simple as it seems. For a start a lone adult with a child, that needs it, will get more benefit than a lone adult without a child. So certainly it seems fair to me that such benefits (the extra for the child) should be 'discounted' against the child support payment from the absent parent.

But you don't get any extra benifits like that for having kids.
With the gov seeing the CSA money as an income rather than a child benifit, they take away *all* benifits up to that amount
So if a mother gets £200 a month benifit, she'll be given £400 from the CSA and no benifits.

Originally Posted by erol

I think everyone would agree with this but I guess the real question is how do you stop acrimonious parents using the kids in such a way?

By the courts enforcing visitation rights perhaps?

[erol]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Only in that they'll get more rent paid due to the larger house that's required.
And more council tax paid as with a larger house it's likely to be in a higher band.
Nothing related to having kids.

Well related to having kids in the sense that having kids requires a bigger house and therefore more support.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

But you don't get any extra benifits like that for having kids.

You do get extra benefits if you have children.

See here
http://www.jobcentreplus.gov.uk/cms....geBenefits/493

"Personal allowances for dependent children:from birth to the day before 19th birthday - £38.50"

Not sure if that is per child but I assume it is.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

With the gov seeing the CSA money as an income rather than a child benifit, they take away *all* benifits up to that amount
So if a mother gets £200 a month benifit, she'll be given £400 from the CSA and no benifits.

I see what you are saying and also see the unfairness of taking all benefits away against the maintance from absent parent. However benefits which relate to the child should be taken away I think. Those that relate to the adult alone, I agree should not. Then there will be some that related to both and I spose some for of pro ratering on these would seem right.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

By the courts enforcing visitation rights perhaps?

I am not convinced of this. If the courts were to relentlessly prosecute the parent with custody, for obstucting visiting rights, then the parent without custody could use this as a threat against the other parent - just more acrimony imo (let me see my child on day x at time y or I get the courts to lock you up for obstucting my access rights). I assume the reason such prosecutions are so rare is that the courts (rightly imo) consider the locking up or even fining of a parent with custody is not in the childs best interest.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by erol

Well related to having kids in the sense that having kids requires a bigger house and therefore more support.

That's a practicality rather than a direct benifit, if you see what I mean.

Originally Posted by erol

You do get extra benefits if you have children.

See here
http://www.jobcentreplus.gov.uk/cms....geBenefits/493

"Personal allowances for dependent children:from birth to the day before 19th birthday - £38.50"

Not sure if that is per child but I assume it is.

I sit corrected.

Originally Posted by erol

I see what you are saying and also see the unfairness of taking all benefits away against the maintance from absent parent. However benefits which relate to the child should be taken away I think. Those that relate to the adult alone, I agree should not. Then there will be some that related to both and I spose some for of pro ratering on these would seem right.

That's the injustice I'm on about, why lose housing benifit/unemployment benifit when the CSA money is supposedly for the child.

Originally Posted by erol

I am not convinced of this. If the courts were to relentlessly prosecute the parent with custody, for obstucting visiting rights, then the parent without custody could use this as a threat against the other parent - just more acrimony imo (let me see my child on day x at time y or I get the courts to lock you up for obstucting my access rights). I assume the reason such prosecutions are so rare is that the courts (rightly imo) consider the locking up or even fining of a parent with custody is not in the childs best interest.

Most visitation orders are specific, like every other weekend, every other half term, first 2 weeks of summer holidays etc.
So it's not like 2 hrs a week to be decided by the father, so you won't get into the situation of let me see my child on day x at time y.
Anyway, it's normally the main custody holder who uses the child as a weapon, ie even tho the courts say you can see our child this weekend, I'm not going to let you because I know it rips your heart to shreds.

Perhaps if the divorce courts(and child welfare agencies) could get away from the gladiatorial way of deciding child custody then just maybe everyone could feel that they get fair treatment.Maybe solicitors and barristers should be kept out of the equation when the pro's and cons of a childs needs and desires are discussed in court.I wonder how often children get to be actually listened to in court?How many even go to court when their future is being discussed?

I so often feel that despite all the protestations that children and their needs/rights should come first they so often don't,either with the courts or their parents or the child welfare agencies.

Incog.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

There's a max amount, which is why Chris Evans despite having millions pays less than 6000 a year for his daughter.

How can that be assuming

Child Maintenance Calculator
Number of children maintenance will be paid for: 1

Number of other children living in the non-resident parent's household: 0

Number of nights, on average, the non-resident parent has the child(ren): Less than 52

The non-resident parent's net weekly income: £2000

The weekly amount of maintenance to be paid is approximately: £300

Anually thats nearly 16k.