[Solved] Help for Men CSA Payments

it takes 2 ppl to make a child I personally don't think anyone is tricked in to it if in doubt put something on the end of it its that simple but i will agree that the costs do need to be looked in to

This could raise and interesting debate, so would be nice to hear everyones views on this.

Personally I feel as above that there are 2 people at the time of conception so 2 people are responsible for deciding how safe the [censored] is, if you distrust that the peson you are with has taken precautions and you don't want to have a child with that person you have the chance to use your own protection.

The only time a guy can say they have been tricked is if the child isn't thiers and then you have test's availible to prove other wise.

If the child is yours you are liable to provide for him/her for as long as needed and to a certian extend I feel that the percentage of wage is a good way of ensuring that the child gets a fair amount of the father money to ensure a good up-bringing.

I have had issues with the CSA over my son when I recieved thretening letter stating I would be taken to court for non payment as I hadn't set up a direct debit, this letter was sent out 4 days after the one which tod me what I would have to pay and I had been in contact with CSA to inform them the amount was incorrect and I wouldn't set the direct bedit until it was altered, so maybe a review of how it's set up could be agood thing but as a whole the CSA do a good job of ensuring fathers pay their way.

Darren

as stated above perhaps iwas a bit direct with saying its not possible to be tricked in to having a child but there are a few clear exceptions to this 1 as mentioned above and the other one i don't really want to open up as its a total different topic

one thing I do disagree with though is if parenting is being split equally there is a need for any csa payments I think this is wrong another thing that should be taken into account is what access has been proposed and whats has been accepted by the other party as if the other part is refusing reasonable access

Because if one party is refusing visitation rights then i think all monies should be for fitted as its not a pay per view agreement i agree but as its so often treated this way i personal feel it might be worth looking in to if one party proves to be difficalty to the extent of refusing reasonable time it still has a direct bearing on the child/ren well being personal view mind and my mind is open to differing views and would gladly read them

I've recently contacted my MP about this very topic, not that I hold out much hope of any help.

I pay a disgusting amount of money to my ex wife - i could rent a second home with what I pay. Its leading to me and my new family struggling as you can imagine.

I've got no qualms about providing for my children but no children need the amount of money I pay a month!

And what makes it worse is that I havent seen them for a year as she's stopped my access and I don't have the £8k quoted spare to take her to court. She's told me she has no intention of turning up to court anyway in which case the whole process would fold and leave me back at square one (and £8k lighter!)

I work all the hours god sends and dont see a spare penny of my money, while she and her new husband sit back not working an raking in endless benefits. We have no luxuries yet she has free housing, nice car etc. The CSA figures were set in 2002 when the cost of living was alot cheaper (my wages certainly havent risen with the rate of inflation) the whole system and rates are outdated and ridiculous.

The government sets an amount of child benefit based on what it says a child needs. Yet maintenance is calculated on a sliding scale....why do children need more just because the father earns more. It should at least be banded. The government must be very niave if they think the extra money serves anything but to line the mothers pocket in most cases.

Ive asked my MP to propose a law where child maintenance is paid only where reasonable access is allowed. It would stop alot of cases of children being used as eapons if the mother had to surrender her maintenance if she refused access (without reasonable reason).

But as usual I am sure my pleas will be falling on deaf ears.

well we all hear about farther's not paying there csa monies i am one of them currently i dont agree wtih paying it to the other half to spend how she sees fit as what she says she needs and what she buys could very by a long way my ex told me she wanted 25 a week for my 2 boys this was and is not the problem i asked her what she needed for them and was told you give me the cash and i will get what they need i reluctently handed over the cash to her whilst also being told that my eldest would not be able to text me as she had no credit on her phone afterwads all of a sudden she has got credit on her phone and telling me she put it on with her own monies which she had also told me she had none so at that point i told her to get the csa involved her reply was i have allready contacted them so untill she starts to let me see them or untill the csa gets inouch she will not be seeing a penny from me it breaks my heart to think that i am having to play a tpical mother situation of pay per view but with all the benefits and support she is getting anyway she turns she is doing better than me i am losing my mind not seeing my boys who up until the split i had spent 1 day away from them in there 5 and 1 year of life the money she asked for has been put in to a safe place so that its ready and waiting for when she starts to play ball

I don't agree that maintenance should be linked to contact, ultimately the children should not suffer in a situation that is not of their making. I do, however, believe that the courts should be much tougher where contact orders are not adhered to (Steve - have you read yoji's guide to representing yourself at the top of the legal section - that could well be the way for you to go?). I also think it's extremely unfair that those assessed prior to 2003 seem to pay much more than those assessed under the current rules - I hope that the new rules (October this year) will resolve this, but it's probably too late for many fathers.

As for paying based on the needs of children, it is simply unworkable as every case would have to be assessed individually, which would simply not be possible.

The law used to state that £20 a week of any maintenance could be kept by the resident parent. Without affecting benefits.
Now the law says they can keep all maintenance paid as well as benefits.
So the non resident parent is screwed. They have to live another life with no money (in my case).
Whilst the resident parent gets far too much.................No wonder this country is bankrupt.(as I nearly am)

I think this is a subject that tends to polarise opinion.

I agree that maintenence should not be linked to contact, as I don't think a child should be punished because of the actions of their parents. At the same time I think that courts should be more inclined to impose stiffer penalties to ensure that contact orders are adhered to. In the event that a parent has to pursue an enforcement order those costs should be awarded against the other parent, unless there are genuine grounds for restricting contact.

I'm not sure anyone can be legitimately tricked into parenthood. I agree with Darren that the only real victims are men who have been duped into believing they have fathered someone else's child. If you sleep with someone that you hardly know and don't take the necessary precautions, then clearly you have no one to blame other than yourself. However I do believe that trust is key to any relationship and I think there are some circumstances when you can genuinely feel short changed by the actions of other people. My son wasn't planned, but he's still the best thing in my life and I don't regret having him for second.

This doesn't mean - and I know I run the risk of making this sound like a total contradiction - that I shouldn't have every right to feel aggrieved with his mother for not taking the morning after pill on the one single occasion that the responsibility for birth control fell to her, especially as it was at her own request. It's still a sore point and I suspect with hindsight that it was deliberate.

Wow. That felt really cathartic :cheer: