Absent parents

panther

panther

☆ V.I.P Member ☆
Tackler
Should absent parents be named and shamed?

If proposals go through parliament, C-MEC could publicly name and shame, remove passports, impose curfews and even take money direct from absent parents' bank accounts if they refuse to pay.
Do you think this is fair?....:rolleyes:
 
It's fair, but it's also a load of cobblers that they will do it. They say they are only going to name people who have already been prosecuted. Why should they name and shame them, if they still haven't complied they should be behind bars.
 
Naming and shaming is just usual New Labour headline grabbing gimmicks. I'm not to sure of the bill as a whole. It depends how "fair" the actual court ruling is, because as I understand most children stop with their mothers, but thats not really fair on the father because although its his child he has no way of making sure the money he is giving over is actually being spent on the child.
 
Cyfr said:
Naming and shaming is just usual New Labour headline grabbing gimmicks. I'm not to sure of the bill as a whole. It depends how "fair" the actual court ruling is, because as I understand most children stop with their mothers, but thats not really fair on the father because although its his child he has no way of making sure the money he is giving over is actually being spent on the child.
Click to expand...

You sound like one of those absent fathers who would expect an itemised expense sheet for a maintenance claim :D:D
 
DO NOT GET ME STARTED ON THIS TOPIC!!

Funny this will come into force by 2013 - mmmmmmm my children will have grown up by then to 16 youngest :mad:
 
panther said:
Should absent parents be named and shamed?

If proposals go through parliament, C-MEC could publicly name and shame, remove passports, impose curfews and even take money direct from absent parents' bank accounts if they refuse to pay.
Do you think this is fair?....:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Do you???????:p
 
panther said:
Should absent parents be named and shamed?

If proposals go through parliament, C-MEC could publicly name and shame, remove passports, impose curfews and even take money direct from absent parents' bank accounts if they refuse to pay.
Do you think this is fair?....:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
In some circumstances, yes it would be fair to do any or all of the above but I'm not holding my breath that it will actually be enforced after the laughable way the CSA went about things. In my case my ex gave up his job just as they were sorting through the case and so was told he didn't have to pay anything for his 2 kids but that it would be reviewed after two years - that was in 1998 - and guess what, it was never reviewed so he hasn't paid a penny to them in 9 years. At one point he offered me £5 a week, I told him to pay it into the boys own accounts (that would answer your point Cyfr) but guess what - it never materialised. So, yes if it could be made to work it would be good
 
The sort of people who have no morals or compassion to support their children are hardly going to bother about being named and shamed anyway.
 
cashman said:
think its another stupid gimmick, deduct child maintainance from wages/benefits job sorted.
Click to expand...

Works for people who are in PAYE bit of a difficulty for self employed. Personally I think that all acounts should be made available and this would stop the cash in had jobs paid into new partners account. and allow direct debits set up to the resident parent (not all non resident parents are blokes).

My wife's ex (after a big fight including the immortal quote from him "well they live with him now he should look after them" (or I've absolved my responsibilities thank f**k) is having his maintenance deducted from his benefit but then you rely on the company. It would be an improvement to include it in the tax then HMRC pay it.

Yes it does mean departments communicating but they do it at the moment with all benefits and tax credits and child benefit.
 
true stan, but as the largest % falls into that category, it would be a damn good starting point? the self employed who surely must be in the minority thats an obstacle to be overcome somehow.
 
My daughter's husband turned self-employed as soon as he left her eighteen months ago. He still goes to work in the same place for the same working hours. She hasn't received a penny from him in all that time and is struggling to look after three young children.

He thinks that he is beyond reproach and I reckon naming and shaming would work in his case. Bring it on!
 
Stanaccy said:
Personally I think that all acounts should be made available and this would stop the cash in had jobs paid into new partners account. and allow direct debits set up to the resident parent (not all non resident parents are blokes).
Click to expand...

It sounds like someone is/was a CSA employee :D

It works two ways, my ex started working without telling anyone. I am happy with what I pay so have left it as is for quite a while now. I think the last thing either of us (myself and ex) want is for the CSA to start interfering again and mess everything up.

You can't ever stop the cash in hand jobs unless you get rid of cash. Then people will do work for other forms of payment anyway. If I earned any extra cash I would not pay it into a bank account at all. It would not be hard to not get caught out.

I totally agree that non resident parents should pay for their children. I do not agree with how the CSA operates. I have dealt with many professional and very competent people at the CSA. Unfortunately they are usually higher up the chain of command and many of the people you speak to on the front line, answering the phones, are often of little use if you have a problem. I pay by direct debt straight into my ex-wifes bank account. Just because someone forget to tell the computer that I pay directly, the CSA computer decided I had not paid for 12 months so it automatically sent out a detachment of earnings order to my company who did as instructed and took the money form me. That meant she was paid twice. This was sorted out and then happened again 12 months later. All because someone did not tick the correct box. Lets see what happens in 6 months form now. An interesting point is that these 2 deduction of earnings orders where actually illegal as I was not in debt and had paid what they said I had not. SO what happens to the CSA when they break the law? Nothing.
 
Neil said:
I have dealt with many professional and very competent people at the CSA. Unfortunately they are usually higher up the chain of command and many of the people you speak to on the front line, answering the phones, are often of little use if you have a problem.
Click to expand...


You want to try making a claim as a bloke with some of these front line operatives. The way they sepak down to you because you dare to break the 'only men leave their families' stereotype is amazing. First one I spoke to 5 years ago took quite a while to realise that I shouldn't be paying maintenance for my daughter :(
 
Neil said:
It sounds like someone is/was a CSA employee :D
Click to expand...


No Neil never have worked for CSA or never wil. I work for a different part of the DWP but as a TU rep have a lot of dealings with the staff there so know how frustrated they are with cr*p IT and a management that is only stats oriented.

I can also empathise with parents who face up to thdir responsibilities yet the IT won't accept it. I also sympathise with parents who are receiving very little if anything whilst the absent parent still earns a good wage but just abuses their responsibilities. I would say anything that can get them to face up to their responsibilities is a worthwile tool. (In this case I do believe that the end justifies the means).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top