General Chat

What do they get paid for.... I applied to the C S A for maintainence when my son was 12mth old. He is now 12yrs old and still I've not recieved a bean for him. Ive contacted them on a regular basis and been told there is a backlog......so what exactly do they get paid for. Any ideas

You know some of them will do anything to get out of paying. But why when all is said and done it is their children they are supporting

What i don't understand is why this agency complicate things.... Why don't they just say that the parent living away from the child has to pay say 10% of THEIR earnings to the child. That way everyone would know what was expected and then no-one else gets involved... I have a friend who doesn't have children but her salary is taken into account when calculating her partners child... How fair is that? In my opinion her money should not come into the equation... it's between the parent and the child!

They contacted my husband about his son's, one of whome is now settled with a family of his own, so I don't think they know what they are doing.... Bev

I agree. They should have just things as they were before the agency came in. I had a solicitor and everything was almost finalised then the CSA took over and that was that. To be honest now I dont want his money at least then I can turn round and say I did it myself. Adam, my son, has never wanted for anything even though it has been a hard struggle and Ive had the support of a wonderful family who looked after him while I was able to go to work. So everything has been okay

On the other side of the coin.... I wish they would scrap the csa and bring in a better court system to work out maintenance. I think the amount paid to each child should be a set amount each week for every child,despite how much the "absent" parent earns. I dont think its right that parent A. Pays £50 a week, and parent B pays £150 a week because he/she earns more. It costs the same amount of money to raise a child. So why must the "Absent" parent be penalised for earning more. And I quote " Absent" loosley as Its mainly the parents who see and support their children who get lumbered by the csa for huge amounts (far more than the fair amount they were currently paying) Causing any second family to get into debt as while the're taking their time to calculate the amount , they backdate payments while they are doing it. Leaving quite a hefty debt to be payed off ( in our case over a grand)...and he was paying maintenance during this time which was overlooked too. Elaine x (glad thats it now all over)

I definately agree with you on that. They should have a different system of working it out. The main problem at the moment is that the CSA doen't seem to know what they are doing. How can so many peoples claims be either lost or stuck in the backlog

Similar situation to your Elaine, My hubbie was already paying adequate maintenece We had quite a battle with the csa and as my husband put it,,'i expect to pay for my child but i dont expect to be robbed'. My two children were excluded from the calculations and when my hubbie asked why this was,,there reply was,'They're not your kids so their not your problem' When it came for a review some time later and they wanted details of my income to include in the calculation,,i threw it right back at them...'She's not my daughter so she's not my problem'and refused to give them any info and they couldnt do anything about it, I have to say, all the girls are treated equally and neither has more than the others,in fact we look after them pretty well and we doing ok until the csa interefered.

I disagree that it costs the same to bring up every child.... the cost is dependant on what the parents want for their children.... otherwise what you are saying is that if someone is earning £5m (Beckham) they should pay the same as someone earning £15k... the lifestyle the child is used to has to be taken into account.

Support money should be for the essentials Food. Clothes shoes books toys Not extras like parties, holidays, ect. ( and certainly not for the ex partner to be living in the way she has been accustomed) As for rich people like Beckham, it would be up to the courts to decide if any extra money would be given periodicly for these extra luxuries. In the real world, its the second families with children who suffer. Hubbys ex worked on the sly ( csa diddnt want to know) Had a lump of his money from the csa. our children had less because i couldnt work, cos my wage would be taken into account, hubby would have had to pay more as he would have lost his percent off because he was the main bill payer, and i would have had to pay for childminders to bring up my kids while i lined ex wifes pockets. I would have come home with little left. Funny that the only holidays we could afford was Sun £9.50 pp holidays. Hubbys ex & daughter could afford to go to Florida and Jamaica. E x

Elaine, I think you missed my point.... if the percentage was set and everyone knew what they had to pay then it would be easy and your salary wouldn't be taken into account. But as for your comment on it being for essentials then no.... just because a parent has decided that their partner is no longer worthy of them that doesn't give them the right to live the life of riley with no concern for the children they have left behind!! All because they think they are funding the ex-partner!! I agree that some men are taken for idiots by their ex's and women for that matter.... but if there was no CSA and just a percentage salary deduction then everyone would know where they stand!!