Originally Posted by Josy

The CSA actually do mess around, for months and months at a time with some people then when they do sort out payments they randomly stop them a month or so down the line without knowing why when contacted about it.

I know a few people this has happened to more than once, my sister in law being one of them, her little girls dad hasn't paid a penny since she was 6 months old, she's almost 4 now and they have been contacted a lot and told exactly where he was working but apparently there 'was nothing they could do about it atm'

My sisters ex husband pays his through his wages every week and it randomly stops every few months, it actually still comes off of his wage but doesn't go to my sister, the CSA don't know why this randomly happens then when they finally sort it out they don't give it all back straight away they give her an extra £2 quid a week on top of her normal payments until it's up to date.

So yes, they do mess about, a lot, I know they never used to but that's changed these days.

Fair enough. I was just going off my ex - who always got the money she was due and on time without any problems. Obviously you all have experienced more about this than I, so I'll accept that they are indeed an incompetent bunch of arses.

Originally Posted by AnnieK

You'd be surprised! I actually know of loads of people who don't declare a penny and realistically don't "exist". Cash in hand, no bank accounts etc and have done all there lives.

Manchester.

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by Jesus.

Manchester.

Salford to be more precise.....

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Jesus.

If he is doing cash in hand work then yes that could be a problem, but you can't just go through life not declaring earnings without anyone questioning you. If he's putting through small amounts, then he'll have to justify and prove that it's all bove board. If he can't, he'll get hit with a calculated invoice.

I've never known the tax office be so blase about potentially catching someone who is known as a tax avoider.

His initial trick was working for his uncle and only declaring a pittance as PAYE earnings (not even enough to live on so CSA took none) however, his uncle was paying his rent and bills for him instead of paying cash and he was working "unpaid overtime" to compensate. They couldn't prove that his uncle wasn't just doing him a favour by paying his rent and bills.

For the last two years he's been making decent money on a self employed basis and not declaring a penny of it. He's not registered as self employed. Whilst it's true that EVENTUALLY The HMRC tend to discover people doing this and severely mess them up for it... They have such a backlog of cowboy cash in hand traders that it can take several years for them to even start looking into reported cases, and then several more for any real action to be taken against them.

So... Whilst he's being an idiot and will get his comeuppance eventually (in the form of fines, backdated taxes or possibly even prison) that obviously doesn't help the child at all in the short term. Or probably ever. Most people who do get caught and ordered to pay a backdated amount still manage to dodge it or only pay a tiny amount per month.

[sassysocks]

Originally Posted by Jesus.

I don't get this, because the CSA just take it straight out of the fathers salary at the same his other stoppages are taken. There is something she's not telling you, because the CSA don't mess around, they just take it.

Sorry, but that's rubbish. It is particularly difficult for them apparently when the fathers are self-employed, as in this case. I know of men who have gotten away with fiddling their self-employed income for years and the CSA are unable to prove differently.

It is too difficult so they focus their time on making those more willing to pay, pay more. The whole systems stinks and has not improved despite all the garbage about getting tough on irrisponsible fathers.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by arista

From Ch5HD News

£110 Maternity each week.

Her Temp housing is £70 a week
Her bills are £40 a week

She wants the best life for her baby but will
soon go to Food Banks to get food.


What Got Me Angry
No mention of a Dad?
Why the Feck is he not funding her
has he run off?


Joey this is Wrong
the Dad of the child should give her money


Sign Of The Times

maybe shes lying about who the father is as so many british women do? to try and milk more money and help out of the wrong guy.
maybe he hasnt got a roof over his head as the women get the house over 80% of the time
in many cases the men pay for the house and the bills , yet dont have a home to live in and little access to their kids too....I hope your heart bleeds for them too
besides women like this should plan for pregnancies

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

His initial trick was working for his uncle and only declaring a pittance as PAYE earnings (not even enough to live on so CSA took none) however, his uncle was paying his rent and bills for him instead of paying cash and he was working "unpaid overtime" to compensate. They couldn't prove that his uncle wasn't just doing him a favour by paying his rent and bills.

For the last two years he's been making decent money on a self employed basis and not declaring a penny of it. He's not registered as self employed. Whilst it's true that EVENTUALLY The HMRC tend to discover people doing this and severely mess them up for it... They have such a backlog of cowboy cash in hand traders that it can take several years for them to even start looking into reported cases, and then several more for any real action to be taken against them.

So... Whilst he's being an idiot and will get his comeuppance eventually (in the form of fines, backdated taxes or possibly even prison) that obviously doesn't help the child at all in the short term. Or probably ever. Most people who do get caught and ordered to pay a backdated amount still manage to dodge it or only pay a tiny amount per month.

maybe hes fed up of her wasting the money on herself or booze and fags and spray tans and tatooes as so many single mothers do nowadays.....child benefit should never be paid in cash , but only in vouchers for food and childrens products

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by the truth

maybe shes lying about who the father is as so many british women do? to try and milk more money and help out of the wrong guy.
maybe he hasnt got a roof over his head as the women get the house over 80% of the time
in many cases the men pay for the house and the bills , yet dont have a home to live in and little access to their kids too....I hope your heart bleeds for them too

So many british women? This is really common eh?

Are you aware that to name the father on the birth certificate he has to actually BE there at the time?

I agree however with biased courts and stuff in breakups...woman nearly always gets the home (though its for the kids more than the woman)

As for

besides women like this should plan for pregnancies

Maybe if men dont want to pay for their offspring, they should put something on the end of it?

/jeremy kyle

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

So many british women? This is really common eh?

Are you aware that to name the father on the birth certificate he has to actually BE there at the time?

I agree however with biased courts and stuff in breakups...woman nearly always gets the home (though its for the kids more than the woman)

As for



Maybe if men dont want to pay for their offspring, they should put something on the end of it?

/jeremy kyle

yes they should, but why should the man end up broke and homeless and working his finers to the bone to keep a woman in luxury, often a woman who doesnt work and has control over everything, the house, the land, the kids, and of course has free everything too

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by the truth

yes they should, but why should the man end up broke and homeless and working his finers to the bone to keep a woman in luxury, often a woman who doesnt work and has control over everything, the house, the land, the kids, and of course has free everything too

I dont know how much you think most CSA rates are but its certainly not enough to keep a woman in luxury Unless the paying parent is a millionaire of course, but thats quite unlikely

Plus its for the child, not the woman. Yeah some women might spend it on themselves, but as I tire of saying tbh, thats the minority and to judge everyone on those few is ridiculous.

Not sure how you expect a single mother to work really...and if she did it would end up costing the state loads in childcare costs. I wouldnt expect a single father to work either tbh. Not when the kids are really young anyway.

And free everything?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by the truth

maybe hes fed up of her wasting the money on herself or booze and fags and spray tans and tatooes as so many single mothers do nowadays.....child benefit should never be paid in cash , but only in vouchers for food and childrens products

Err... Child Support applies to all regardless of their income, it's not a benefit, it's to get men to pay for their offspring in exactly the same way that they would if they were a present and responsible father? In fact, I can tell you for a fact that most fathers who are IN their childrens lives (properly) spend a higher percentage of their income on their kids than the paltry percentage that the CSA takes. In this case, she's not a "single mum on benefits", she works and they do fine, but she (quite rightly) wishes that he would contribute something to the upbringing of a child that is 50% his.

I agree to an extent that it should be a choice though: CSA should only apply if the father has CHOSEN not to contribute as a proper parent, by seeing them, buying them things, having them stay with him sometimes, and... well, being a parent, basically. It should only apply to those who have ****ed off by choice and contribute nothing (money OR a parental relationship). It should certainly never apply when the mother is denying the father access to the children. They have to choose between getting financial support and allowing the father to have a full relationship with his kids, or cutting off contact and having no right to expect support.

Regarding false claims against people with money: Named fathers can deny support on the grounds of contesting parentage, until there's been a DNA test proving that he is the father. Mothers can't refuse a DNA test and still claim financial support.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Err... Child Support applies to all regardless of their income, it's not a benefit, it's to get men to pay for their offspring in exactly the same way that they would if they were a present and responsible father? In fact, I can tell you for a fact that most fathers who are IN their childrens lives (properly) spend a higher percentage of their income on their kids than the paltry percentage that the CSA takes. In this case, she's not a "single mum on benefits", she works and they do fine, but she (quite rightly) wishes that he would contribute something to the upbringing of a child that is 50% his.

I agree to an extent that it should be a choice though: CSA should only apply if the father has CHOSEN not to contribute as a proper parent, by seeing them, buying them things, having them stay with him sometimes, and... well, being a parent, basically. It should only apply to those who have ****ed off by choice and contribute nothing (money OR a parental relationship). It should certainly never apply when the mother is denying the father access to the children. They have to choose between getting financial support and allowing the father to have a full relationship with his kids, or cutting off contact and having no right to expect support.

Regarding false claims against people with money: Named fathers can deny support on the grounds of contesting parentage, until there's been a DNA test proving that he is the father. Mothers can't refuse a DNA test and still claim financial support.

Definitely agree with this. My sisters boyfriend is having a big problem with this at the moment. The mother wont let hims see the child (despite courts ordering he has to have at least 4 hours a week with her to begin with, and rising after that) but he is still expected to pay. The paying part doesn't bother him at all but hes getting very pissed off with the whole situation and I can see why it would make some fathers unwilling to send money. It has cost my sister an absolute fortune for solicitors and courts and such...and its actually technically my sister whos paying the CSA as he is unemployed at the moment. They pay WAY over what they 'have' to...but say they will never cut off the money as thats just spiting the child to get to the mother.

The courts are ****ing about with the access thing as the childs mother is deaf and dumb, and keeps coming out with random excuses about how she cant show and that. So it seems in matters like this, having a disability helps you to legally be a twat.

[sassysocks]

Originally Posted by the truth

maybe shes lying about who the father is as so many british women do? to try and milk more money and help out of the wrong guy.
maybe he hasnt got a roof over his head as the women get the house over 80% of the time
in many cases the men pay for the house and the bills , yet dont have a home to live in and little access to their kids too....I hope your heart bleeds for them too
besides women like this should plan for pregnancies

You are unbelievable. Women don't get the house, the parent with custody of the children gets the house so the children have a home, and rightly so. It takes two to make a baby and two to plan for pregnancies. You can't blame one without the other, unless of course you don't care about reason, and simply apply different standards according to gender, to suit your own bias.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by sassysocks

You are unbelievable. Women don't get the house, the parent with custody of the children gets the house so the children have a home, and rightly so. It takes two to make a baby and two to plan for pregnancies. You can't blame one without the other, unless of course you don't care about reason, and simply apply different standards according to gender, to suit your own bias.

thanks for the compliemnt....women get the house on over 80% of cases. the bias in culture and in law towards women creates havoc for everyone including the extended families and the child too. justice should be blind and impartial not grossly sexist against men as it now is. no wonder so many men kill themselves in this country

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

Not sure what the point of this thread is, are we saying this woman is not receiving enough benefit or is it too much ?

Father is long gone, probably only a teenager himself so no real financial support possible.

Situation is common across the UK , I feel sorry for the child what a great start in life he/she will have...!!!

Only a teenager? She looks about 40.

[sassysocks]

Originally Posted by the truth

maybe hes fed up of her wasting the money on herself or booze and fags and spray tans and tatooes as so many single mothers do nowadays.....child benefit should never be paid in cash , but only in vouchers for food and childrens products

What loaded tosh. The mothers are the ones doing the work, children don't look after themselves. Fathers have a responsibility to contribute to their children's upkeep - it takes two to make em and two to pay for em. How dare you try and control women/mothers by demanding they receive child benefit in vouchers - it is just a vicious attempt to try and belittle women.

[sassysocks]

Originally Posted by the truth

thanks for the compliemnt....women get the house on over 80% of cases. the bias in culture and in law towards women creates havoc for everyone including the extended families and the child too. justice should be blind and impartial not grossly sexist against men as it now is. no wonder so many men kill themselves in this country

I don't know where to start with that drivel. Of course women get the house, as they are usually the main carers providing a home for the children. What do you suggest, the man should get the house and the women and kids be made homeless - sounds like another attempt to control women to me. Force them to obey your rules or make them homeless. If they have a mortgage, the house will be sold and the proceeds split between them when the youngest child is 18.

Women are the ones that carry and give birth to their children, unless there is good reason not to, why would they not get preference over the fathers as the main carer. Why do you seem to think men should have more rights when, due to biology, they have contributed less to the creation of the children? As children cannot be split in two, mothers have more rights to custody of their children, unless proved otherwise.

The bias in culture and in law, as you put it, was loaded against women for years in this country, and still is in many parts of the world. Now there is finally more equal treatment of women, in the Western world, men like you whinge on about hard done by you are because you can't control women in the way you would like to any more.

[Kizzy]

I brought two up alone after my partner walked out, my advice to anyone would be to get married before having children.
This way there is a much leveller playing field when you do split.
Being unmarried was a nightmare even with the advent of the CSA it was impossible to get correct assessments as it took months/years to get the correct info, by then some circs could have changed which kept the balls in the air for even longer... meanwhile you try to struggle on.
I appreciate there are those who use the kids as bargaining tools, this is totally wrong financial support and access should never be linked.
Just as bad are the fathers who walk away and never look back hoping to wash their hands and start again.
Everyones individual experience is different, a more child centred approach is what is needed looking at what's important for them... It's not purely a financial issue.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by sassysocks

I don't know where to start with that drivel. Of course women get the house, as they are usually the main carers providing a home for the children. What do you suggest, the man should get the house and the women and kids be made homeless - sounds like another attempt to control women to me. Force them to obey your rules or make them homeless. If they have a mortgage, the house will be sold and the proceeds split between them when the youngest child is 18.

Women are the ones that carry and give birth to their children, unless there is good reason not to, why would they not get preference over the fathers as the main carer. Why do you seem to think men should have more rights when, due to biology, they have contributed less to the creation of the children? As children cannot be split in two, mothers have more rights to custody of their children, unless proved otherwise.

The bias in culture and in law, as you put it, was loaded against women for years in this country, and still is in many parts of the world. Now there is finally more equal treatment of women, in the Western world, men like you whinge on about hard done by you are because you can't control women in the way you would like to any more.

I don't understand what your analogy is, you can't decontruct things like that, it's like saying without an oven a cake is just flour and egg..
With the cost of living rising exponentially and the lack of affordable housing I can see why men are in the break up of relationships getting a very rough deal.
You can't just say ' I made this! It's mine, get out! '

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I brought two up alone after my partner walked out, my advice to anyone would be to get married before having children.
This way there is a much leveller playing field when you do split.
Being unmarried was a nightmare even with the advent of the CSA it was impossible to get correct assessments as it took months/years to get the correct info, by then some circs could have changed which kept the balls in the air for even longer... meanwhile you try to struggle on.
I appreciate there are those who use the kids as bargaining tools, this is totally wrong financial support and access should never be linked.
Just as bad are the fathers who walk away and never look back hoping to wash their hands and start again.
Everyones individual experience is different, a more child centred approach is what is needed looking at what's important for them... It's not purely a financial issue.

an excellent and very fair post which has not in any way been clouded by any personal angst or bitterness. I applaud your sincerity and attitude

[sassysocks]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I don't understand what your analogy is, you can't decontruct things like that, it's like saying without an oven a cake is just flour and egg..
With the cost of living rising exponentially and the lack of affordable housing I can see why men are in the break up of relationships getting a very rough deal.
You can't just say ' I made this! It's mine, get out! '

Did I say that? I was saying that if both parents are good parents, and only one can get full custody, it makes more sense for it to be the mother as biologically and emotionally she has invested much more and is best placed to do so. In that situation why would the child be taken away from the mother and given to the father - it would make no sense.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by sassysocks

Did I say that? I was saying that if both parents are good parents, and only one can get full custody, it makes more sense for it to be the mother as biologically and emotionally she has invested much more and is best placed to do so. In that situation why would the child be taken away from the mother and given to the father - it would make no sense.

I sort of agree but I don't think you're being child-centric enough in your reasoning, which seems to be that the mother "deserves" the children more because they have "invested" more. What either parent has or hasn't invested or does or doesn't deserve is totally irrelevant, all that matters is what's best for the children. It is true however that in MOST (not all) cases, children would be more traumatised by being removed from their mother, even if they love both parents equally and both parents love them equally. And I say that as a dad who would basically struggle to go on at all if my children were taken from me.

However - that's where you hit a bit of a logical paradox. If both parents are good parents then why is one seeking full custody? If a mother knows that their child's father is a good father, why would custody not be shared? If the mother know he's good then she should seek to have her children see him as much as possible. If she seeks otherwise then you hit the paradox: she is *not* a good mother. She is putting her own feelings before what's emotionally best for her children.

[sassysocks]

Originally Posted by the truth

yes they should, but why should the man end up broke and homeless and working his finers to the bone to keep a woman in luxury, often a woman who doesnt work and has control over everything, the house, the land, the kids, and of course has free everything too

Looking after young children is hard-work as anyone who has actually looked after them will know. As most women work outside of the home these days as well as looking after children - most of them work doubley hard. It sounds like a case of someone not appreciating the work women do in the home and raising children, because they themelves have never done it. Not the most suitable type of person to be getting custody of children in my opinion.

[sassysocks]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I sort of agree but I don't think you're being child-centric enough in your reasoning, which seems to be that the mother "deserves" the children more because they have "invested" more. What either parent has or hasn't invested or does or doesn't deserve is totally irrelevant, all that matters is what's best for the children. It is true however that in MOST (not all) cases, children would be more traumatised by being removed from their mother, even if they love both parents equally and both parents love them equally. And I say that as a dad who would basically struggle to go on at all if my children were taken from me.

However - that's where you hit a bit of a logical paradox. If both parents are good parents then why is one seeking full custody? If a mother knows that their child's father is a good father, why would custody not be shared? If the mother know he's good then she should seek to have her children see him as much as possible. If she seeks otherwise then you hit the paradox: she is *not* a good mother. She is putting her own feelings before what's emotionally best for her children.

I agree. I do, of course, believe the child's needs are paramount, I was just frustrated by one poster's dismissal of the importance of the mother's role and how much work she does looking after children and running a home, whilst obsessing only on the effects on fathers in some situations and seemingly implying the fathers' needs/feelings should be given priority over all else - it sounded very much like a control issue to me.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by sassysocks

I agree. I do, of course, believe the child's needs are paramount, I was just frustrated by one poster's dismissal of the importance of the mother's role and how much work she does looking after children and running a home, whilst obsessing only on the effects on fathers in some situations and seemingly implying the fathers' needs/feelings should be given priority over all else - it sounded very much like a control issue to me.

You were suggesting that in every instance the child is best suited with the mother, that is fundamentally not correct.
Nobody is obsessing on anything, it's important to try to see both sides of the coin.
The 1950s analogy of women in the home is very sweet but it doesn't translate in modern times, nobodys needs/feelings should be given priority except the children who deserve equal time with both parents.