The CSA are all bitter jobsworths

November 10, 2012

I broke up with My Ex about 11 years ago and i have not seen my son in all this time as she made it impossible for me to trace them. I originally went to solicitors for access, but when I picked him up, she would slap the back of his legs behind the door so that he was always crying when I took him.

I now have a new family of wife and dependent children whom I willingly support. The problem is that I am having to pay for a child that I dont know, I dont even know the colour of his eyes or where he goes to school. He does not carry my surname either. I have asked the CSA to help me regain access to my son but they are just not interested, so when I state that this is unfair they are really negligent towards my feelings, all they want is money!

My current family are suffering financially because the CSA place more importance on somebody that I really do not know. I have tried to come to a reasonable amount with the CSA but they just wont listen, It is causing problems with my current situation and I cant seem to get anyone sensible to speak to in the CSA, they are all stubborn pigheaded jobsworthy bitter and twisted people.


6 Responses to “The CSA are all bitter jobsworths”

  1. hornbeamfairy on November 10th, 2012 6:16 pm

    RT @CSAHell: The CSA are all bitter jobsworths: I broke up with My Ex about 11 years ago and i have not seen my son i…

  2. j on November 10th, 2012 7:24 pm

    The csa have nothing to do with access to your child. They simply exist to collect money. Access is a matter for the courts.

  3. wilf on November 10th, 2012 7:58 pm

    j is quite correct the CSA is collection and distribution agency. All the money collected is passed to parents with care at great expense to the taxpayer.
    The new system shortly being introduced will charge clients in order to obviate some of these costs.
    When the CSA was introduced in the early nineties by a Tory government the idea was to recoup some benefits paid to parents from non-resident parents but this proved to be too complex and expensive so now all parents with care whether on benefits or not receive all monies collected.
    By charging fees the present government wishes to encourage as many people as possible to come to private arrangements and thus save money by downsizing the CSA.

  4. Alice on November 11th, 2012 4:36 pm

    unfortunately as others have stated the CSA’s remit is to collect maintenance money on behalf of parents with care where a private family based agreement is not possible, they are unable to get involved in any access issues which should be pursued thought the family courts
    good luck

  5. n on November 14th, 2012 10:41 am

    The csa are a complete waste of time, they will not listen a women can say anyone is the father and then they will track him down and take his money even though he is not, it is then up to him to get a dna even though he as nothing to do with it. The mother should be made to pay this for telling lies its all wrong and the csa don’t give a s**t that it affects others and it causes good families to break up

  6. Alice on November 15th, 2012 8:38 pm

    @ n – when the csa contacts an alleged non-resident parent they are asked if they accept paternity of the child(ren) named in the application – if the ANRP denies paternity they are offered a DNA test, if the accept the pursue the DNA test and are proven not to be the father of child(ren) the case is closed with no liability and the cost of the DNA test if covered by the CSA. If they are proved to be the parent then the case will be effective from the day the ANRP is contacted, an assessment will be done and the cost of the DNA test will be charged to the now proven NRP.

    If the ANRP accepts paternity or refuses the DNA test and later questions the paternity of the child(ren) then it is up to them to obtain a Declaration of Non-parentage through the courts.

    If an ANRP denies paternity and is wishes to pursue a DNA but the parent with care refuses to have a DNA test on child(ren) then the case is closed with no liability to the ANRP.

Got something to say?