My husband shouldn’t have to pay

January 31, 2012

My husband is a fantastic dad to his 2 children and also to our own boy. He IS NOT AN ABSENT FATHER! He sees his kids almost every day he has them overnight and gives them dinner, clothes them sorts out school uniform and lunches they sleep round on 3nights a week every week. Now who can tell me he should be paying any CSA money at all! They have them about equal amounts of time and will do anything for them yet HE PAYS her and yet we don’t get anything! She gets all the child benefit also.

We have our son and he is one year old now and it is a struggle! We could do with that money to survive. What can I do about this?? It’s so unfair and causes a lot of arguments

Comments

19 Responses to “My husband shouldn’t have to pay”

  1. Brian on January 31st, 2012 12:58 pm

    That’s a real shame and the reality of how bad this one sided CSA corrupt, mafia out fit works. The Govt should be ashamed of themselves for inventing such a system based on fear, intimidation, extortion, lies and deception. The CSA are “legal terrorist’s”!

    All for what to fund the lifestyle of quite a few mothers and PWC many of whom think money first – children last! what a joke.

    Many MPs are not aware of the full working practises of the agency. It is only when issues are highlighted by NACSA or individual constituents that we have the opportunity for questions to be asked in the House of Commons.

    Remember, your MP delivered the CSA… only they can vote it out!
    You must write to your MP and complain about CSA and how they deal with your case.

    Brian

  2. jay. on February 1st, 2012 8:19 am

    Have you informed the csa of your shared care, as this reflects on payments? They ultimately will ask you to provide proof, which some pwc will fail in mentioning as it means less money for them, then contact stops, which is dreadful as csa with pwcs are using the children as weapons for financial gain, which I thought was illegal. Keep a diary for the pwc to sign, and keep receipts of clothing etc, as technically once you pay csa that covers the cost of the child, ethic no but that’s how they look at it.

  3. chall on February 1st, 2012 9:54 am

    Laura,

    Shared care is based on the number of nights the children spend with their other parent. 3 nights a week equates to 156 nights per year. Therefore the other 209 (+ 1 more this year as it’s a Leap year ) nights are spent with the parent with care.

    You should check the calculation is correct.
    Child maintenance is based on you OH’s income, this also includes and WTC if he is the higher earner (split 50/50 if you earn the same) & any CTC that have been awarded to your household.
    Have the agency been notified of your son, as your OH should receive a 15% reduction for him prior to maintenance being calculated.
    The link will enable to you roughly establish if the CS calculation is correct http://www.cmoptions.org/en/calculator/calculator.asp

    chall ~ afairercsaforall

  4. John on February 2nd, 2012 9:22 am

    Unfortunately. Welcome to the club.

    I am a fantastic dad (even though I say it myself). I raised a child on my own. That child is now an adult, has a very good education, has a good job and is a credit to me.

    I am was an NRP for two others, there is only one left in the system now.

    I have been treated like a criminal for 12 years….and I have been paying!

    Maria Miller said in yesterdays debate in Parliament, that the governemt are ‘recycling’ benefits claimed by the PWC, and that the NRP picks up the tab. If this is the case I should have a right to know, and a statement provided of the PWC’s benefit claims, because I am repaying her claim! The CSA won’t do this because they are raking in extra cash from their easy targets, without proof that the money they steal is the correct amount…..it’s basically theft/fraud!

    Miller brags of consulting ‘Gingerbread’, ‘Relate’ etc….. she hasn’t consulted me, or the protest groups, who know that this system and it’s staff are shambolic!

  5. Leigh on February 2nd, 2012 3:30 pm

    Here we go again lets slate pwc i am a parent with care who does recievr maintenance for my child i dont have a lavish lifestyle.i work full time and ni
    Believe that all fathers have a duty of care why should the mother foot all the bill my vhild has what he needs from my income alone so the.csa recieved goes towards lucrryd.that he wants it annoyd me that the men have more children and moan about paying for others

  6. Leigh on February 2nd, 2012 3:31 pm

    Your hubby should pay

  7. chall on February 2nd, 2012 4:18 pm

    Quote; John on February 2nd, 2012 9:22 am
    Miller brags of consulting ‘Gingerbread’, ‘Relate’ etc….. she hasn’t consulted me, or the protest groups, who know that this system and it’s staff are shambolic!

    John,

    The list of Groups that are consulted re C-MEC is extensive, and includes Groups who know the level of suffering that can and has been be caused.

    Annex A – List of stakeholders
     4Children
     Action for Children
     Association of Director’s of Children’s Services
     Barnardo’s
     The Centre for Separated Families
     The Centre for Social Justice
     Children Need Families
     The Child Poverty Action Group
     The Children’s Society
     Children’s Workforce Development Council
     Citizen’s Advice
     Citizen’s Advice Scotland
     CIVITAS
     Demos
     Family and Parenting Institute
     Family Links
     Family Lives
     Families Need Fathers
     Families Need Fathers Scotland
     The Fatherhood Institute
     Federation of Small Businesses
     Fife Gingerbread
     Lindsays
     Gingerbread
     Grandparents Plus
     The Institute of Payroll Professionals
     The Law Society
     The Law Society of Scotland
     The Low Income Tax Reform Group
     ManKind
     MATCH
     Moneywatchers
     MumsNet
     NACSA
     National Family Mediation
     NetMums
     One Parent Families Scotland
     One Plus One
     Parenting UK
     Parentline Plus
     Payroll Alliance
     Policy Exchange
     Relate
     Relationships Scotland
     Refuge
     Resolution
     Rights of Women
     Save the Children
     Scoop Aid
     The Tavistock Centre for Couple Relationships
     Women’s Aid
     Women’s Health and Equality Consortium
    http://www.childmaintenance.org/en/pdf/Maintenance-Calculation-Regulations-2012-Technical-Consultation.pdf

    chall ~ afairercsaforall

  8. John on February 3rd, 2012 2:18 pm

    Chall. ‘The list of Groups that are consulted re C-MEC is extensive, and includes Groups who know the level of suffering that can and has been be caused’.

    Nice list……. all PRO Government, and just because they may have been consulted, does mean that their views are taken into account!

    As a father and a payee of 12 years I have not been consulted by any of the below named:-

    4Children
     Action for Children
     Association of Director’s of Children’s Services
     Barnardo’s
     The Centre for Separated Families
     The Centre for Social Justice
     Children Need Families
     The Child Poverty Action Group
     The Children’s Society
     Children’s Workforce Development Council
     Citizen’s Advice
     Citizen’s Advice Scotland
     CIVITAS
     Demos
     Family and Parenting Institute
     Family Links
     Family Lives
     Families Need Fathers
     Families Need Fathers Scotland
     The Fatherhood Institute
     Federation of Small Businesses
     Fife Gingerbread
     Lindsays
     Gingerbread
     Grandparents Plus
     The Institute of Payroll Professionals
     The Law Society
     The Law Society of Scotland
     The Low Income Tax Reform Group
     ManKind
     MATCH
     Moneywatchers
     MumsNet
     NACSA
     National Family Mediation
     NetMums
     One Parent Families Scotland
     One Plus One
     Parenting UK
     Parentline Plus
     Payroll Alliance
     Policy Exchange
     Relate
     Relationships Scotland
     Refuge
     Resolution
     Rights of Women
     Save the Children
     Scoop Aid
     The Tavistock Centre for Couple Relationships
     Women’s Aid
     Women’s Health and Equality Consortium

    Perhaps you would like to comment on the below:-

    Up to £300m of child maintenance debts to be written off
    More than £300million worth of historic child maintenance debts is to be written off, in a new move by ministers.

    Some absent fathers will be allowed to pay back a fraction of the money they owe to the failed Child Support Agency, and then see their cases closed, in order to get them off the books.

    In other cases where there is no hope of the cash being paid, such as where parents have died or the Government had sent unrealistic bills, debts will simply be erased.

    Is this afairercsaforall?

  9. chall on February 3rd, 2012 5:04 pm

    Quote John; Nice list……. all PRO Government….

    ~ are they?

    John,

    I bother wouldn’t bother to get to excited re; debts to be written off.
    It will only bring a resolution in a small minority of cases where the arrears are unlikely to ever be collected in full.

    Currently there is no provision to write off arrears of child maintenance ie,
    1) The PWC makes clear that they no longer require the arrears to be collected (and the arrears are owed to the parent with care rather than the Secretary of State see *NB below);
    2) The PWC has died and there is no known next of kin;
    3) The NRP has died and the arrears cannot be recovered
    from their estate;
    4) Arrears accrued from an Interim Maintenance Assessment (IMA) which
    was calculated between April 1993 and April 1995; or
    5) The agency has advised the non-resident parent that recovery of the arrears has been permanently suspended; for example, where the arrears have accrued as a result of delay in establishing the maintenance liability (which was not the fault of the non-resident parent)

    The proposed write off power is limited, so that the agency may only exercise it in respect of certain prescribed types of arrears, as above.

    *NB The agency will be able to negotiate with both the non-resident parent and the parent with care in order to accept a part payment in full and final satisfaction of all the child maintenance arrears owed.
    Where the arrears are owed entirely to the Secretary of State by way of benefit recovery, the agency will exercise its discretion to decide if the amount being offered by the non-resident parent is reasonable.

    The agency will remain focussed on pursuing arrears of child maintenance and ensuring that parents meet their financial responsibilities for their children.
    Arrears will mainly remain due, parents will not be relieved of their liability to pay.

    chall ~ afairercsaforall

  10. John on February 4th, 2012 10:01 am

    The fact that £300 million is being ‘touted’ as a write off, of debt, is an insult to anybody who has been the victim of the CSA/CMEC!

    It cannot be right that there are those who pay and abide by the rules are being treated differently to the ‘feckless’ ones who avoid or don’t pay to support their children.
    Yes! there are some who ‘get caught’ and see the ‘wrath’ of CMEC enforcement, and then turn to protest groups for advice. It is their fault in the first instance, where if they knew they had a responsibilty to pay maintenance and have avoided doing so and eventually getting caught!

    There are so many scenarios/individual circumstances (as we see on here), that it becomes impossible for the current systems’ to be fair ‘across the board’! This is my whole arguement!

    I had a best mate whose wife did a runner and left three children behind! He soley provided for those childen for 8 years. He submittted his claim for child support from the mother when she left. The CSA continually’ let her off”, and she made excuse after excuse. She was in employment and the CSA should have put a DEO on her income but they never did. He did not receive one penny! It was different rules for her because of her gender!

    He died suddenly aged 47. The maintenance was still owed to the children some now adults. I understand that the CSA wrote it off, because she concocted a ‘sob story’ and a pack of lies that she was’back in the childrens lives! I know for a fact that the CSA did not recover any money from the mother at all!

    Having had 12 years of experience of the CSA, I think that I am qualified to give an opinion.

    In those 12 years, the CSA have made persistent errors with my case. My M.P. stated to them ” I can only consider the dealing of my constituent with the CSA as a story of repeated incompetence, almost wilful unfairmess and maladministration. They have over a period od years caused him huge embarassment, profound and unecessary stress and it seems that in their current dealings wiht my constituent, their pattern of incompetemce is set to continue”.

    Six months later, CSA incompetence struck again, because they had made yet another error. This time they dumped £6,400 worth of debt on to me! I attended a tribunal, where the adjudicaor stated ” I have no jurisdiction regarding arrears”. He dismissed mmy case! The CSA then put a DEO on my income for £290 a month!

    The system is flawed and not fit for purpose, and the staff incompetent beyond belief!

  11. chall on February 4th, 2012 12:12 pm

    John,

    Quote; The fact that £300 million is being ‘touted’ as a write off, of debt, is an insult to anybody who has been the victim of the CSA/CMEC!

    ~I agree. But feel the media are somewhat responsible for this than the agency.

    Quote; The CSA continually’ let her off”, and she made excuse after excuse. She was in employment and the CSA should have put a DEO on her income but they never did. He did not receive one penny! It was different rules for her because of her gender!

    ~I don’t agree. There are plenty of PWC that have had the same issue and their NRP is male.

    Quote; Having had 12 years of experience of the CSA, I think that I am qualified to give an opinion.

    ~I agree. Everybody involved with the agency is qualified to give an opinion.
    Sadly, all to often when a persons opinion or experience differ to another’s we witness some posts being made trying to curb or belittle such and often resulting in personal insults.
    I also consider there’s a difference between experience or opinion and Legislation.

    Quote; The system is flawed and not fit for purpose, and the staff incompetent beyond belief!

    ~I agree.

    chall ~ afairercsaforall

  12. John on February 4th, 2012 6:20 pm

    Quote ~ Everybody involved with the agency is qualified to give an opinion.
    Sadly, all to often when a persons opinion or experience differ to another’s we witness some posts being made trying to curb or belittle such and often resulting in personal insults.
    I also consider there’s a difference between experience or opinion and Legislation.

    I think that you mean ‘flawed’ legislation!

    If any of your ‘posted’ groups would have consulted me, I would have said consultation at the benefits office, would have been the way forward, in order that the DWP can provide me with evidence of my the childrens’ mothers’ claim and of her TRUE financial status!

    ~ I note that you only comment on issues that suit your own opinion and not on factual issues that I have raised regarding the ‘shambolic’ CSA!

    I rest my case!

  13. chall on February 4th, 2012 7:08 pm

    Quote John; I note that you only comment on issues that suit your own opinion and not on factual issues that I have raised regarding the ‘shambolic’ CSA!
    I rest my case!

    ~ Please expand and qualify John….
    I’ve agreed with your statement , Quote; The system is flawed and not fit for purpose, and the staff incompetent beyond belief!
    I have also factually responded to your perceptions re; debts being written off and the agency being gender biased.

    Other than pointing out, the Groups listed are not actually anything to do with me, but were from the Consultation on draft regulations, which incidentally if you OR anybody else who had cared to pass comment on, were free to do so.

    I fail to see what ‘case’ you now feel you are prepared to rest !

    chall ~ afairercsaforall

  14. John on February 5th, 2012 11:37 am

    The plethora of scenarios alone on one site (CSA Hell) tells us all that we need to know about how this ‘flawed’ system is affecting the majority of people involved with it!

    I pass comment on this system regularly. More recently, to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and on the 1st of February 2012 to John Bercow Speaker of the House of Commons, as I am being passed around as some sort of ‘pariah’ who dares to challenge the system and those who created it, and those who run it!

    It is a biased and corrupt system. that has very little to do with childrens’ welfare, but has a lot to do with recycling benefits for a run for profit company (with CCJ’s against its’ name) on order that government can spend the profits on other ‘flawed’ projects!

  15. chall on February 5th, 2012 2:34 pm

    Quote John; The plethora of scenarios alone on one site (CSA Hell) tells us all that we need to know about how this ‘flawed’ system is affecting the majority of people involved with it!

    ~ Completely agree, and everybody, without exception, should be given the opportunity to given their perspective.

    Quote John; I pass comment on this system regularly. More recently, to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and on the 1st of February 2012 to John Bercow Speaker of the House of Commons….

    ~ Good, the more such people learn and understand the better.

    Quote John; It is a biased and corrupt system. that has very little to do with childrens’ welfare, but has a lot to do with recycling benefits for a run for profit company (with CCJ’s against its’ name)…

    ~ “biased” against who, males, females NRP’s OR PWC?

    Re; Your comment “a run for profit company (with CCJ’s against its’ name)”…
    I believed the current system was costing the taxpayer around £450m a year.
    Could you confirm how much yearly profits the CSA have been making and how many CCJ’s it has against it’s name and what they are pertaining to?

    chall ~ afairercsaforall

  16. John on February 6th, 2012 3:40 pm

    Chall “biased” against who, males, females NRP’s OR PWC?

    Answer = Everyone of them.

    Re; Your comment “a run for profit company (with CCJ’s against its’ name)”…
    I believed the current system was costing the taxpayer around £450m a year.
    Could you confirm how much yearly profits the CSA have been making and how many CCJ’s it has against it’s name and what they are pertaining to?

    Still awaiting the answer for this under my Freedom of information request!

  17. chall on February 6th, 2012 9:16 pm

    Quote John; Answer = Everyone of them.
    ~ I agree there also.

    Quote John: Still awaiting the answer for this under my Freedom of information request!

    Will be very interesting to see what they come back to you with.

    http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/75122/response/198685/attach/html/3/VTR%20IR%20130.pdf.html
    “However the Commission does hold information in relation to County Court
    Judgements (CCJs) which in your request you stated were listed on the Dunn and Bradstreet directory.
    The Commission is committed to prompt payment of bills for goods and services. In 2010/11 the Commission paid 97% of relevant invoices within ten days of receipt of the goods or services, or on presentation of a valid invoice or similar demand.
    Further information about this is included on page 23 of the Commission’s Annual Report and Accounts 2010/11

    If an overpayment of child maintenance is made by a non-resident parent the
    Commission has procedures in place to investigate the overpayment and refund the non-resident parent if required. Circumstances when a refund of child
    maintenance may be required include where the non-resident parent has made a payment and there are no arrears outstanding; there has been an overpayment of maintenance; or the case has been closed or suspended. Further information about refunds made to clients is available on p38 of the Commission’s Annual Report and Accounts 2010/11.

    On a small number of occasions suppliers or customers have applied for a CCJ for payments that were outstanding. The Commission has robust processes in place to ensure that supplier payments are made and refunds to clients are processed correctly however I am unable to confirm that all CCJs against the Commission have been satisfied. As the Commission is a large organisation with over 100 offices around the country it is possible that the paperwork received from the Court relating to these CCJ applications may have been sent to the team dealing with the case for payment or refund rather than the Commission’s legal team. As there is not a centrally held record of each CCJ received by the Commission, to check all case records for each refund or supplier payment would not be possible within the appropriate cost limit.”

    chall ~ afairercsaforall

  18. John on February 7th, 2012 11:32 am

    They have ‘all bases’ covered and they are undoubtedly ‘playing the system’ with customers/contractors and yet again they blame proceedures in their organisation, to gain an advantage. A recurring theme!

    I did receive my reply from Bercow. His ‘get out of jail free card’ is that he has to remain impartial (which I expected), and advises me to contact my M.P.

    An M.P. who doesn’t want to know, as he has been ‘slapped down’ for raising my issues with CSA hierarchy and his (get out of jail free card, was). “Parliamentary protocol prevents me from interfereing in your case”

    So, there you have it, the circle is complete. From CSA to M.P, from M.P to Ombudsman, from Ombudsman to Parliamentary standards commission, from Parliamentary standards commission to the Speaker, and back to my M.P.!

    As Churchill said. “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning”

    Time will be the judge of the shambles known as CSA/CMEC!

  19. chall on February 8th, 2012 8:56 am

    I’m sorry to hear that Bercow and your MP have both let you down.

    Re; The link to the FOI request, and credit checks with Dun & Bradstreet, a global credit reference agency, pertaining to the CSA/C-MEC.

    I understand any establishment ie; Councils, Police, Political Parties, Ministry of Justice, etc, who has expenditure due to paying for goods and services received, ie; printing, postage, publicity, stationery, computer systems, IT service charge, contracted out services, general office expense, consultancy, etc, could have a credit rating.

    Surely a claim that the agency is “a run for profit company” is insufficiently proven on the sole strength and basis of a credit check,and the likely probability that suppliers / customers have gained CCJ’s for outstanding payments from CSA/C-MEC.

    It would be enlightening if who ever decided this was the case, produced further actual evidence with the common purpose of substantiating their claim.

    chall ~ afairercsaforall

Got something to say?