There should be a fairer CSA

September 24, 2010

Who decided that 15% deduction from earnings for the first child then 5% for every other up to 50% is fair. It might be fair to upper class people and the rich but what about normal working class on incomes between min wage and 40k a year.

After discussions with the csa its about lifestyle. Now I understand the need to contribute but lifetstyle is a cop out. My ex partner lives in a council house and receives benefits for our 2 children and 1 from a previous relationship as well all the csa payments I make and her ex partner before me.

I live in a mortgaged house mainly because of my partners wage, lets face it I couldn’t afford a mortgage on my own and we do struggle. My ex is never to going to buy a house and get off benefits, its to easy for her hence my children will never live the same lifestyle or a decent one!

I believe it should be costed how much it costs for your children to live and the parent in care has to prove this by way of receipts.
Why should I fund my ex partners nights out, wirless internet, sky tv and contract mobile oh the tax payer are contributing to, as she is on benefits.

I toatally see why NRP’s stop seeing their children and do other things like giving up work and commiting crime because the amounts NRP’s payout is pathetic. With csa and benefits my ex is left with around £800 a month and all she has to pay is water,gas and electric as well as food shopping and clothes which is not that often for the kids. After all my outgoings incuding csa i’m left with £180 a month to buy food and clothes. I dont see this as fair.


  • Brokenfather says:

    “Who decided that 15% deduction from earnings for the first child then 5% for every other up to 50% is fair”

    Nobody, because it’s 15% for 1 child, 20% for 2 and 25% for 3 or more.

  • graeme says:

    I would love to be on the CS2 assessment.. I would be saving £300 per month.. instead of having to pay £550 per month for 1 child. Maybe then I could have a half decent standard of living. Instead of having to live to work to pay this amount over. Probably from next month I will seriously have to look at where I can make cuts in my lifestyle to pay this amount… BTW i also have to pay £200 per month towards arrears..if that means i have to go hungry then so be it. Please dont get me wrong, I love my son and if I can afford it I would give him my last penny….but to hand it over to this abominable agency pisses me off no end.

    I agree at a much fairer CSA should be put in place. The should address the problems that have arisen from the arcane CS1 ASSESSMENT.

    I strongly believe that 15% for 1 child is a fair assessment. It is then up to both parents to agree on the needs for the child (ren) for any extras etc. Unfortunately in our society today to many people are riding the gravy train of the benefits they get… and that includes the PWC’s who demand more and more from the NRP.

    Before people shoot me down with both barrels, I realise that this is a small minority, but it does happen, you only have to read the stories on this website. That statement in no way reflects the majority of hard working PWC’s who are working full time etc, and who are in receipt of payments from the agency who are looking after theyre children. It is the NRPs who do not and constantly fail to pay and who fail to take responsibility for the children that annoys me.

    So overall I agree that 15 % is a fiar assessment. As I stated I would love to be on that.



  • John says:

    There shouldn’t even be any system in force whatsoever! It is for parents to make financial provision for their children. Not politicians or grade 2 office clerks!

  • trevor franks says:

    I personally dont believe 15% or what ever percent is fair what is fair is the amount an absent parent can afford to pay .The csa drives parents that have split up further apart thus creating the absent parent seeing their children less and less and upsetting the children in the process GREAT WHAT A SYSTEM WE HAVE HERE .. E.G. i earned before, i was made redundant take home pay around 450 ish i was ordered to pay £75 a week to my son i get made redundant first time in my life, i am 42 years old i have payed into the system all my life since i was 16 years old i am a grown man i am expected to live on £65 a week ??? is this fair ????the goverment think !! so do you ??i dont not only did my son get £75 a week of me he also got his mums money in put what ever that is lets say £25 a week of the mum my son use to get £100 i get £65 how can this be fair i do believe in paying for my children but can you see my point

  • Brokenfather says:

    Hear hear John.

    The trouble is that the CSA was never meant to be about maintenance for children. It’s principal purpose was to get money from working fathers to reimburse the treasury for benefits paid to non-working mothers ……..

  • rach says:

    it should go back to the court system whereby all parties finances are taken into account including assets that the nrp has signed over to the pwc ie houses,cars etc. The only pwcs who would not gain from the court systems are the ones who got caught out on a one night stand and thats there problem! dont care what backlash i get from that statement either. the benefits system pays better than work so those pwcs would still be looked after. csa should go!! end of

  • Busylizzy says:

    Therefore is it fair that the first born child let alon any others thereafter shoukld suffer ie Man with one child ( CSA states pay 15%) but then goes on to JUST live with another women has his income reduced for his biological chid by 15percent becouse his partner has a child. Therefore Prod Quie Pro. She under the CSA gets 15pct from the biological father plus 15pct (equals 30) from the non bioligal father So what does his actual biological chld get it equates to 15% of 85% of the BIOLOGICAL fathers income whereas the other child recieves a 30% income

  • rach says:

    yes that is fair that it is reduced when the nrp has other children in the household. when you meet someone with children from a previous relationship they become “part of the package” and when you all live together you share the bringing up of these children (financially and emotionally ) also when the pwc meets a new partner it is the same for them if they are not prepared to “take the children on” then you dont have a relationship with them. Also on csa1 the nrpp income is taken into account but not the pwc’s partners wage, Is THAT FAIR? i expect you shall say it is!

  • Brokenfather says:

    I have to say that any parents primary responsibility should be to their own children, not the children of someone else ……

  • rach says:

    i am not speaking on my own situation as all my children belong to the nrp!, but i fully understand the nrpp who is working begrudging having her/his income taken into account as why should they pay for someone elses child particularly when the pwc partners income is not considered, the whole set up is unfair. As to your original response to this gentlemans post i feel i should add that if he has arrears on his account then the csa would be taking up to 40% of his wage and they have also been known to take more than that amount and get away with it. .

  • Jem Pogue says:

    This has allways been my main gripe against this abhorrent agency.On top of the ridiculous amount of maintenance they demand you pay, they take no notice of all the costs incurred if and when you can actually see your children. When my ex moved 250 miles away they awarded me a reduction of £2 p/w for travel costs ???This agencies main objective is to step in when the courts have failed to ensure PARENTAL ALIENATION continues through financial means !!!

  • Garry Roe says:

    Well at least they're consistent Jem , they also gave me a £2 reduction for travelling 336 miles to have contact with Ruby ! ! ….. they said the MAX they give is £5 …. i guess Ruby would have to live on the moon for me to get this reduction and money would go towards paying for the rocket fuel lol

  • Jem Pogue says:

    And unbelievably they brag they are fair !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Hannah Batten says:

    I agree with you that it is disgusting that Fathers should only recieve £2 to travel so far but please as a "former" single mum, who lived in a council house, please don't tar all women with the same brush.My ex husband owes me over £13,000 in CSA. He is a useless waste of space that avoids paying for anything and would rather go to court and prison, I have worked for 5 years with 2 small children and no childcare, just depending on the kindness of my family and friends… I strugled like hell but I have done it.Yes the CSA is totally corrupt in how they work out money for the NRP.I am now trying to remove my ex husband from the birth certificates so that I don't have to fight with the CSA to help me anymore (before anyone says anything he isa convicted paedophile, so not actually that evil of me!!) so that my new husband can adopt them. The CSA screws everyone up!!

  • Sylvia Dunai says:

    Not all single mums in council houses or flats are on housing benefit!!!

  • Jem Pogue says:

    Sylvia we are not blaming the single mum's for this unholy mess (allthough lot's do play the system) This is entirely the agencies fault as they cannot see the damage they are doing to the children with there ridiculous rules and decisions.

  • Allan Morrell says:

    Hannah, if your ex is a convicted peadophile, what on earth is he doing out? how does he owe you £13K if he spends time convicted as a peadophile? I note also the comment were you say he owes you and no mention he owes your child the £13K..If he is out as a convicted peadophile, when did he get sentenced and for how long?I ask as your comments do not add up just yet to confirm that you are not some PWC whoi s similar to those who slander the PWC to remove NRP from childs life……. Just like a couple who have an argument then report violence or rape that never took place just to score points against the partner… It happens!!!!!As an ex-con theif, I cannot understand that a convicted peadophile was only inside for a few month for such a horrible crime… pls clarify… I am not like the CSA to accept such comment without proof or evidence….Peadophiles should be named and shamed…. are you prepared to name and shame to present your comments are truths…. Many PWC's will comment slanderous accusations just to deny NRP contact, please, please tell us that this is not your intention but that you can prove your comments with facts rather than using the comments just to deny NRP's contact with your child. I support you protecting your child if your comments are true but how can we accept this as truth when many PWC's will say similar comments to achieve the result of stopping NRP having contact with child and many NRP's are actually innocent…I support all NRP's and PWC's providing for and protecting their child but there are way too many PWC's that make false accusations against NRP's and therefore you can understand that there are NRP's who have had the PWC say similar just to stop the innocent NRP from contact with their child… I am in no way accusing you of the same but some evidence to support your comments will help enforce our support for you…. a news link will help, enough to prove you are a PWC who is very concerned about your child rather point scoring against an otherwise possibly innocent NRP!!! PROOF PLEASE!!!There are too many NRP's that are falsley accused by PWC's to obtain more money from the NRP and to alienate the NRP from child..

  • Jason Wallace says:

    I agree with the sentiment of the initial post. There should be consideration for the NRP's ability to live and also to run their lives whilst also considering the cost of bringing up children.The system as it stands allows an ex partner to benefit unfairly should the NRP's career take off while the NRP's new partner has no ability to benefit from this.I end up working something like a 70 hour week and am away from home way to much as I try to make ends meet. My poor wife does not have the nights out etc. that my ex has and of course has the worry of a huge mortgage over both of us while my ex lives mortgage free.

  • Hannah Batten says:

    Allan he is on sex offenders register, i should know after sitting in court with my foster daughter for weeks! He served time on remand for nearly a year before sentencing, which as im sure you'll realise is taken into consideration. You seem quite a difficult person frankly. Im afraid you'll be hard pushed on here for people 2 take any of your comments anywhere near seriously if you consider all women the same. many women do suffer abuse as do men but assuming they lie when they say something about it 2 police, makes you a very self opinionated idiot.

  • Allan Morrell says:

    Hannah; As to you're comment reference stating all, you will find yourself corrected upon such review as to the fact I comment MANY not All, my words are direct and opinion is presented in accuracy and never swiping and tarring all PWC's as money grabbing bitches, just Many!!!!first the facts are that several or many is a comment that clearly states NOT ALL… My aim and as many PWC's and NRP's request a fair system but look at the evidence that is presented by a number of NRP's where PWC's have made false allegations to courts and CSA to minimise contact with NRP and child. this is in my opinion where the system remains unfair to the PWC's and NRP's Child/children.

  • Allan Morrell says:

    It's easy fot the PWC to make such comments like the PWC who has recieved cash from NRP and yet tells CSA the opposite, causing NRP 2 pay up twice.. is that fair….. You can still comment that your ex is on the sex offenders register, to gain even more support which we genuinely provide. We can only take your word for it as do the CSA and other relevant bodies who provide you equal support…. but how do you arrive at sum of 13K being in and out of prison and through courts, how about the sentence and remand issues…. how was he employed to arrive to that sum?as for comments about going to Police about abuse, I never made any comment or reference that you lied, there are however MANY PWC's who would lie about such things which puts people who are at more risk of being in a position of not being believed, this is very unfortunate but it is true…Like I said, I never made comment to All but there are many PWC's that will and do make false allegations against NRP's and they are the EVIL ones, never stated you are one of these types but I am a firm believer in proof and evidence before I present any opinion as a fact. I do not make an opinion on a balance of probability but will question the balance of probability that the evidence exists!!!

  • Busylizzy says:

    Brokenfather thankyou you at least understood my point ie it is the biological “PARENTS” responsibility to bring up the child/ren not just financially but in every respect. As for any other children in the relationship the nonbiological partner is I believe only “Loco Perentice” ,by law, except made financially resposible under the CSA. Hence, no disrespect to whom soever reads this, why should my children continue to suffer financially becouse “I” choose to remain single and not get hitched up with a partner and even if I did the last thing I would want or expect is the partners children financially suffering becouse of mine thanks to the CSA or is that becouse I set myself high “Morals and Ethics” something which is lacking in todays siociety……………………………..

  • dave says:

    every father wants to pay for their own biological children but in the majority of cases they may now be in another relationship with stepchildren or more biological children and they may also be the ONLY breadwinner so of course some percentage should be deducted before maintenance is paid and just because my opinion differs to yours or anybody elses it certainly does not make myself immoral

  • Karen Bedford says:

    The problem is with todays climate and economical challenges, we are all struggling apart from the ones who play the system whether working and claiming benefits or otherwise. It should be means tested (for both parents – as both should be supporting the child/children. But it is too one sided!!

  • >