No access but forced to pay

December 1, 2012

I’m about to move out of my one bedroom flat, which is just a one bedroom though I advised the housing association I have two. The reason being I simply cannot afford to live and pay the csa at the same time.

I have no issues with looking after my children, its more so lack of willingness to communicate from the other side. My cost of living which is trust me the bare essentials n even not eating to get through as well as maintaining via csa has/ is crippling my ability to live. I have a job though if I get another know that I that also will be taken into the account.

I am even refused access to see my second child. The csa will say that it’s a legal matter between myself and the mother at hand though i can’t actually afford to pay therefore the legal aid so I am finished before I start I van represent myself yes. Though once again I can’t even afford to eat. And being a good apparent it is about time spent though sometimes you do actually want to go somewhere at least once a month with your child.

I am just thinking I used to be able to buy clothes toys and other essentials for my child before they came along and now I can’t even put clothes on my back for an interview le along my children. so whereas the crime if I suggested I would rather the system insist firstly that mothers who have contact with the children have the sole responsibility to attain that maintenance and whereby its proved that there has been avoidance or if cases where malice may be proved more than word of mouth which is how the csa is run at present. It is quite frustrating when you are a father who wants to have access to his children though can’t afford the systematic financially and is crippled in the same way in another sense.

Being told that if I pay for a blood test to prove or disprove if I am the father and that being done still gives my no rights as a father as in schooling medically or actually being able be a positive influence in my children’s live bar monetary is both absurd and disrespectful to any being. That said im a young un so sorry to type on …when paying I only am able to see my children on the mother’s term?

The system is trying to reduce its presence though puts nothing in place to force such instances to be dealt with via the parents. Should I really pay if im not being allowed access to my child? And no in any form causing threat to showing any cause of concern nature as it were? I’m am seriously talking about the good to do and willing to do half’s which exist in any relationship.

Access via legalisations if you ca afford it should not even come into play. Paying financially should only come into play when access clearly should be denied or is not in other cases possible. Monetary donations to a child are nothing if the actual upbringing of the child is not totally positive. I’m quite sure that if we look statistically we will see a rapid rise in fathers working though in the same stead cases time and time again where good fathers are given no actual strong healthy legal backing as you will find loads in favour of our female counterparts.

Though at times this may be called into question as in actions carried out via systematic processes to help them at times fails. The fact is that they are in place and a living entity within itself. So…good life and live well


  • wilf says:

    Was this previously posted on 27/11/2012?

  • Joseph says:

    This post makes no sense what so ever!

  • Alice says:

    the short answer to the post is yes you still have to pay towards the upbringing of your child whether you get access or not.

    If you on a low income you may be entitled to legal aid to allow you to take the access issue to court. The CSA cannot get involved in any access issues, nor can they close a case if there is no access. Maintenance and access are 2 completely separate issues.

  • j says:

    Not really sure what point you are trying to make.
    The commentator ‘Alice’ is right, the issue of maintenance has nothing to do with contact. Some would argue that the two should be linked but as nost mums and dads are happy to pay for their children what would be the point?
    The issues on this site cover mostly the processes and ‘unfair’ calculations involved in maintenance payments.
    I agree that in the event of divorce/separation the issue of access should be enshrined (its a childs right) and maybe maintenance should only happen if access is maintained by the PWC, but what if the NRP is a slob that doesnt give a fig and doesnt want to see the child?
    The csa exist to collect money, thats it.

  • Sally says:

    child access should not be dependant upon child maintenance the NRP pays but unfortunately the CSA has provided the PWC with the tool to punish the NRP and this is it!!!

    The amount of overnight stays is one of the core criteria for assessing the amount that should be paid and as a result, a lot of PWC reduce the amount of overnight stays so that the get more money. If this criteria was taken out of the assessment then we wouldn’t have that problem.

    The CSA should assume 50/50 parentage and calculate accordingly…. both parents have to pay a mortgage/rent, council tax, bills, clothing for the kids, entertainment for the kids… a ‘home’ for the kids and it costs money (regardless of how many overnight stays the child has)… the PWC can claim child benefit, wtc, ctc… the NRP can’t!!!

    My partner did not see his kids for around 3 months because his ex felt that she was entitled to even more money than agreed (which was already more than the CSA stated)…. so her greed for money and the CSA criteria resulted in him losing contact with his kids for a few months…. in the real world access and child maintenance come as a package for the PWC thanks to the CSA!!!! if the NRP doesn’t give the PWC what she wants, she uses access to the kids as a punishment!!!!

  • >