how does the term 'absent parent' fit all?

Hi - Just wondering if anyone has had a similar experience to mine. I separated from my ex 3 years ago (we co-habited for 10 years but didn't actually marry as neither of us believed in it) and we have one 10 year old son. Since then our child has lived exactly half the time with each of us and we have shared every single expense - We both earn exactly the same salary.
Now with regularity I am threatened with the CSA (which got as far as the application for child support being processed before I was able to reason with her to drop it but the threat is ongoing) . Naturally I find it hard to see the situation as anything other than an active father being penalized for their gender. I accept that the csa calculator will take into account the amount of time he is with me but surely when that time is half - the 'maintenance owed' should be zero?

Anyway, my question is:

All the csa literature refers to the 'absent parent'. has any responsible, present father successfully challenged this legally on the grounds that they are simply not absent.

ps The csa tell me the above term means only the parent who isn't receiving child benefit (yet a father like myself cannot challenge the child benefit decision).

I thought the term 'absent parent' had now been replaced with 'non resident parent'?
Sorry I don't know the answer to your question.

Thanks for your reply, fluffy.

It may well have been but the term 'non-resident' is just as inaccurate for a lot of responsible fathers like myself who are still subject to CSA threats. I was just wondering if anyone had successfully refused to fill the forms in because the term does not describe them.

Sorry, I don't know the answer to your question. I personally didn't bother threatening my stbx, I just applied for a CSA assessment and the following week he increased my payments. Amazing....

hi rye

Unfortunately, that is the problem with the systems we have in place, they just cannot cope with anything that is different.
If you look after your son half the time, then I dont think you should be threatened with the CSA that is quite spiteful, hateful even. Once again children are used as weapons against the other party.

Have you tried explaining to the benefits office your dilemma, silly question, you probably have, but they just hear blah blah,they cannot adjust anything, because it is all on the computer, no room for human adjustment to different situations.

Your ex needs to grow up and realise that you are both the boys parents and to stop acting like a spoilt child.

Would not be so bad if the CSA also had the capacity to sort things out properly either. Trouble is these 'authorities' are pretty useless coping with anything mannual.

zara

Can you think of a better term to distinguish between the parents?

Hi Fiona,

Presume you mean me??

Because one parent will profit more from holding onto the benefit book. If they are sharing the bringing up of the child then any monies and benefit entitlements should be shared equally too.
As the child is not spending any more time with on than another, both of the parents should be supported equally as far as the benefits are concerned. And.. more importantly the person with the benefit book is seen as the more powerful and can make threats to involve the CSA when there is absolutely no need. Can make decision. It is a benefits book, not a licence to threaten.

Perhaps our benefits system, especially now that there are far more cases of equal residence for children are concerned, get their act together and put the system into the place so that both parents receive benefits. 50%.

Is it the first to the post, the one that gets the benefits??
Probably all too complicated for the likes of our government bodies to deal with.

zara