CSA Process does not work

April 7, 2010

2002 to 2010 in the labyrinth of the CSA. More than one year at the first tier level, more than one yeat at the Upper Tribunal level only to be reverted to the first tier level once again.

In my case, the upper tribunal, while acknowledging that it seems very unfair, even repugnant, that the non-resident parent should have had a nil assessment yet be worth several million, has allowed an appeal which essentially upholds the reasons for the nil assessment, ie the superior importance of business over children.

In other words if you can put all your assets into a business and that business involves land or property, and then you only syphon off the minimum of what you need to live on. Hey presto, a nil assessment and the ability to feel you have been victimised.

A decision of this kind, against a backdrop where many other fathers are contributing from their pay packets is worthy of attention. Millionaire finds loop hole and squeezes through with the approval of the judiciary and those who drafted the law, or rather those who can’t rememember why this clause was inserted in the first place.

More interestingly, it’s probably time to look at the real reasons behind the reluctance of father’s to pay mother’s because this is where the animousity lies. Children are simply the innocent victims of the flawed parental dynamic. The answer lies in the relationship with the original mother, both his and hers. If the father was not fed well, and I mean this in the wides possible sense, he will not have much of a concept of feeding/giving to others.

Surely, for many the CSA is simply a tactic which enables revenge on the original mother. Essentially what we have is a situation which allows men to project their mother loathing onto the next available mother. The tragedy is that it is another generation of children which is disabled by the animousity experienced.

My conclusion is that while the process invites this attitude of revenge there will never be resolution, therefore, it is unfit for purpose. Those who do not wish to pay for their children will find whatever means at their disposal to avoid their responsibility. If Government really meant to support children they would make it encumbent on men to support their children as a matter of law instead of insisting parents with care find the finance and energy to pursue. So Simple.


  • Brokenfather says:

    I have never read such complete and uttter rubbish in all my life …

  • rach says:

    you talk a load of crap judith its just your bitterness at losing seeping through

  • >