Why is the CSA necessary?

But how do you get all NRPs to actually share the parenting??

If they are the type of person who wants their kids only when it suits them and knows that the PWC will step in and care when the NRP would rather go out drinking/on holiday etc - what happens then?

Even if there were punitive financial measures in place to equalise parenting - tell me how the PWC actually MAKES the NRP be responsible.

Shared parenting by law with equal care of the children and each parent providing totally for the children during the time the children are in their care would prevent many parents having to resort to the Courts. Holidays and large expenditure could be split between the two parents as and when. With this type of arrangement, there should be no need for one parent to transfer money to the other parent as each would share joint responsibility and expenditure for the children.

I am in favour of Andrian Sanders early day motion No 34 which notes as follows:

that child benefit can only be paid to one parent; further notes that this unnecessarily discriminates against the other parent where parents are separated and maintain shared custody of children; further notes that this can further discriminate against one parent by preventing access to suitable housing and additional income to allow them to provide for children; further notes that this can lead to restricted access for one parent to see their children; and calls on the Government to take action to address these problems.

This seems fair to me but I am not holding my breath that anything will come of it.

There are parents of course, who have no interest in providing for their children so CSA or some similar means is necessary to ensure that absent parents do support their children.

One of the things that is an Absolute disgrace is the way people view children.

A lot of people seem to think their children are commodities that they "own".

One side seems to think they can pay or not pay, see them or not see them, replace them with new ones much as you would a car.

The other side describes them as "mine". or lets them out on a pay-per-view basis or gets terribly upset when they are with the other parent overnight although would not bat an eyelid if they were at a sleepover with friends.Or they say things like I'm having the children but I stilkl reserve the right to moan about being the one who has to drive them everywhere,or clear up therir sck.

All children deserve two parents who view them as little human beings with their own needs. Children are a joint enterprise, with the joys, privations and frustrations they bring. They are not the means to keep or be given a house, they are not the latest celebrity accessory, they are irreplaceable individuals whos needs should never be subsumed by whatever their parents game plan is.

Ursa Major wrote:

The other side describes them as "mine". or lets them out on a pay-per-view basis or gets terribly upset when they are with the other parent overnight although would not bat an eyelid if they were at a sleepover with friends..

This really hits home with me.
I have gotten physically upset reading posts on this forum where a PWC has come on beside themselves because thier children are staying with the nrp for the first time, or over christmas, or on their birthday.

PWC will NEVER, EVER understand the TRUE pain that comes along with being excluded from the FMH and to go from seeing your children everyday to seeing them once a fortnight, and in my case, go 4.5 long months without seeing any of them. Only when you are denied access will you ever feel the true upset the childrens absence causes.

I thought the csa was a savings plan for tax free holiday money

hawaythelads wrote:

I thought the csa was a savings plan for tax free holiday money

Many a true word is said in jest Pete !

Why is the CSA necessary ?

Because parents are people and some are inhuman !