Why is the CSA necessary?

The CSA was designed to reduce the benefit bill by getting NRP's to pay to support their children rather than the state paying - so at the time if the NRP did pay CS then the PWC did not receive Income Support if their maintenance exceeded the benefit rates. The Child Poverty agenda which was a key agenda item still exists hence the changes to IS entitlement for those whose youngest child is 7.

I am eternally grateful to the CSA for acting as a third party in the collection of the maintenance but I realise for others it can be a nightmare.

Mmmm, as if that's the only problem.

How about ex-wives who lie to the CSA, resulting in their ex-husbands to interviews under caution with the CSA?

It costs the CSA 70p to collect every pound they then provide in child support. Perhaps a simpler option would be for the CSA to automatically deduct a percentage of funds coming into a NRP's bank accounts? They have the power to look into bank accounts already, I believe.

FD

Personally, I think the CSA was a good idea on paper which pacified media concerns over the state paying for all those single mothers... Generalisation, of course, but it is how the media like to phrase it - never mind the lone parents who are Dad's.

Ideally yes, both parents should be fully involved and interested in the emotional and financial well-being of their child/ren, whether they live together or not.

I'm one of those where the father chooses to be involved as little as possible - and that was with four planned children within a 20 year marriage (media hate me, as I'm not the stereotypical lone-parent!).

But, I can't change him, and I have to deal with my children's needs, financially (I'm brilliant at coping with a budget) and especially emotionally.

CSA has not been able to help in my case, as he hid his income well. I'm not prepared to pursue it as my energy is better directed trying to make my children's lives as happy as possible.

Sorry for the rant...

Who says the CSA is necessary?

It has failed to do what it was set up to do (save the taxpayer the cost of bringing up other people's children).

It actually costs about £2.50 to collect each pound, since most of the money it collects would be paid anyway.

If post separation parenting were more equal there would be little need to transfer money from one parent to the other.

If contact were enforced as energetically as child support it would save the family justice and child support systems millions.

Child support is a tax on fatherhood and subsidises family breakdown.

Why should any parent subsidise the loss of his own family?

I think what I was trying to ask is why does the NRP often not WANT to help provide for their children?

And as regards contact with children, my ex since meeting his new woman has sent them large xmas cards, but has not seen them, or text them (they don't have his number to text him) and so they havn't seen him for 5 months..

I actually phoned him tonight and suggested we discussed the children and he said that he was "not interested". Great for him perhaps, not so great for them although they don't ask for him, but Im sure one day soon they will.

Voluntary CS is seldom recognised by the CSA or the courts - your ex could just claim otherwise as mine does. She also refused to accept money from me, saying she will be obliged to give me contact then. So I ended up putting it aside in a separate account.

I think almost all parents want to and will support their children, its instinctive - the system just does not allow it.

Why not support parents to work out things amongst themselves and reach agreement? Shared parenting would mostly resolve it - there should be no NRPs.

The state has its tentacles too deep into the family, and its destroying the very fabric of society.