Why is the CSA necessary?

I am wondering why some absent parents are so reluctant to help support their own children. It really does baffle me. I read that some absent parents go all out to hide or not disclose income in order to have to pay less child support.

If every absent parent lived up to their moral and financial obligations to their own offspring the CSA would not be necessary and huge sums of money would be saved by the government to put to use elsewhere.

What does anyone else think?

I would rather the CSA didnt exsist. then my ex couldnt use the excuse that i cant see my kids more as her CS will decrease.

Couldn't you just pay her the same?

No because that is contact for cash and blackmail in my eyes.

being on the small wage AND taking on all my exs debts from the marriage while she keeps nearly all the asset has made every penny count. ie 25 less to her means that feeds the kids the extra 4 days a month i see them.

the answer is simple, I guess, in that not every 'absent' (not sure I like that word but will go with it) parent is prepared to face up to their responsiblities towards their children.

I don't agree with the 'pay per view' system that the CSA seems to encourage (there seems to be general agreement that the Australian system is better in that respect) which is what eyes on the horizon has experienced. But there is a court/legal system in place to help stop that kind of behaviour with Contact Orders (I know, it doesn't always work, but then neither does the CSA!).

There seems to be 3 kinds of NRP.
1) the one's who persistently flit between no work and cash in hand work, and thus avoid paying maintenance through the CSA. Most likely to choose not to see their children or play games with contact or use contact as a means by which they 'get at' the PWC. Sweeping statements but probably the least educated/with poor academic attainment and most likely to have had an entirely absent father themselves.

2) those who pay, with or without the 'help' of the CSA, and who see their children regularly, have a reasonable relationship with the ex and manage to work through issues. Less likely to have had absent parents and/or have had separated parents who have tried to do the best by their children. All levels of education, work experience etc. etc. possible in this category - focus is on the children and trying to do what is right, not on the rights and wrongs of maintenance.

3) the self employed ones which fall into two categories.
a) self employed builders, plumbers etc. etc. who can do cash in hand work and thus declare nil incomes to the CSA and by and large get away with it.
b) self employed company directors or sole traders who have accountants who can make their money disappear before your very eyes and thus declare low incomes to the CSA and by and large, get away with it. from what I've seen on here and other forums, these are the most likely categories to have few problems when it comes to contact (PWC not interested in stopping contact) but are the most likely to have taken court action ('cos they can afford to, basically) and have on-going acrimonious relationships with the ex. I would also put higher earners into this category (the really high earning ones!) although the CSA can get to them through their employers if necessary.

Obviously, my experience is that of a self-employed company director who will do anything and everything to hang onto 'his' money. He sees things very much in black and white - his money, he says what he does with it. He doesn't see why he should pay because he'd have the children full time (would consider himself superior to other NRPs on that count) and I suspect at some level, has tried and continues to back me into a corner financially so I'll hand the children to him (and you can bet he'd be the first in the queue at the CSA with his indignant face on if I did!). It's win or lose with him - he doesn't have the children (lose) so he'll not pay for them (win). Doesn't see that we could share their care, even up our incomes with the help of some honesty and a mediator, and have a win-win for all of us. Most likely category to be pig-headed, stubborn and whilst clever in many, many ways, stupid when it comes to compromise!

As I said, obviously some broad statements there and I apologise if I have offended anyone as it's not my intention (and I recognise that not everyone will fit into these categories very neatly!). It's just how it seems to be from the people I have met and talked with.

I don't believe the CSA has anything to do with the Government ensuring that children are supported financially by the NRP, and everything to do with making sure the State/taxpayer isn't paying when the NRP should.

Do you mean that if the absent parent doesn't pay any maintenance then the state makes up the difference? Since April of this year I believe, the parent with care does not have to declare how much she gets from the other parent, i.e. she will get the same benefits whether she receives any child maintenance or not from the absent parent.