just got a letter off csa informing me i have to pay 340.00 pound a month for my two kids,argued that i couldnt afford that much so they droped it to 240.00 a month,i have never not provided for my kids since i have been back in work i have bought them anything they needed i have them at weekends and any time i can.so please tell me why my ex wife who has got her own business fiddles the books earns in a fortnight what i can only hope to earn in a month can get away with it,and yet can get full rent paid,full council tax paid,working tax credit and child tax credit.yet they dont take into acount my council tax my rent and other living costs.this system stinks and needs a rethink.

You don't get your rent and ctax paid for if you get child and working tax credit so something isnt right for a start.

If you have an agreement outside of the CSA then they don't need to be involved surely?

120 a month per kid isn't much though, it costs a lot more than that to have kids, wish mine only cost me that.

tried to have an ageement without csa but she wouldnt have it,so it doesnt come in to it what i have to live on a month is that what your impling.

tried to have an ageement without csa but she wouldnt have it,so it doesnt come in to it what i have to live on a month is that what your impling.

£240 a month for your own children . i guesse you would like the taxpayer to pay for your kids .

Seems as if the tax payer is paying anyway with all the 'tax credits'.
I can understand where you are coming from eddie, although I don't know your situation. If you are on your own and have the children every weekend, plus other times, then I would have thought you can claim for some of the child benefits your partner receives for the children.
.
Don't know if it's possible, as all things change, all the time. Worth a try?

Eddie is surely only expected to pay for half the costs per month, so two children is £240 x 2. Their mother receives benefits towards her share of the costs

granny how come you can always understand where people are coming from . granny can sit on the fence when suits

Probably because I brought my own family up on my own, before all these tax credits. My family are now facing the similar problems.
When you have had an extremely full life like mine and engaged with people from all walks of life, rich and poor,black or white, gay or straight, young and old,at home and abroad, and listened to their problems, maybe you will then understand the word 'empathy'.
So far you haven't shown any

Csa take 10% of your wages for each child so in your case 20% surely that's not too much to pay for your kids. Wish mine cost me 10% each I'd be loaded!!!

The parent with cares I.e your ex, has no input into your maintenance calculation. She could earn a million pounds a day and you would still have the bill via CSa and because its the law there is pretty much nothing you can do about it.

I believe Granny's viewpoint on this and other subjects on this forum is called maturity,i.e the ability (or even the desire) to see both sides of a discussion.Sadly for many people this is seen as a weakness when in fact it is very much a strength.

Most weekends I used to collect my daughter from school on a Friday, she would stay with me all weekend and I would drop her back there on a Monday morning. This meant that although she actually spent more time with me than her mother, she spent 4 nights at her house and only 3 at mine, therefore ALL the child benefits went to her mother.

The system is crazy enough as it is, can you imagine trying to split the credits depending on who has the children for which nights, missed nights when one is ill or extra nights during holidays.

The CSA charge 15% for 1 child, 20% for 2 and 25% for 3 or more. You can apply for shared care if you have your children over 52 nights per year and you would get a reduction in your maintenance calculation.

If you are now in a new relationship and have a new family to support the CSA should take them into account as well. Regardless of morality, I don't think they can impose too high a demand in respect of your ex if doing so causes hardship to any other children you currently support. You'll still have to pay maintenance of course but probably not as much.

If you have children in your household, then you can claim an allowance for them which is taken off your net income.
1 - 15%, 2 - 20%, 3 or more 25%.
If you haven't had any contact with the CSA, you need to call them & give all your details re any overnight stays, children in your household, private pension & get the amount you pay reduced.

EXACTLY,well said

Works both ways though eddie64, you could have a partner earning thousands and her income wouldn't be taken into account when calculating the amount of maintenance you pay.

listen 19frank40 when did i say i wanted you or anyone else to pay for my kids,wat i said was i buy my kids wat ever they need i have tried to be reasonable.let me ask you this mate have you ever been homeless and slept outside in january,have you had your world torn apart when you found your wife having an affair,have you lost your house your family and everything you worked so hard for,so do me a favour mate dont say i want you to pay for my kids thats my job and i work fkin long and hard to make sure they dont go without.

and the same to guitarlad until you have been in my situation mate you might have something worth sayin.

see i got on reply from the fools who i had a go at.

Do you mean no reply?
It is a shame that you weakened you argument by calling those who present an alternative viewpoint "fools".

didnt weeken nothin mate,as i stated i asked no one to pay for my kids,my argument is csa does not take into acount how i have to live.and i will say it again until you have slept rough on the streets and then ended up in the ark with the drunks and the druggies please dont defend people who havnt been there,they were not giving a different viewpoint they were sayin i did not want to pay for my kids.

and by the way do you have kids salmon?

I was actually trying to be supportive towards you but it is a fact that in any discussion a person who resorts to personal insults weakens their case. Whether I have children or not is of no concern to you at all.

no its no conern of mine if you have kids or not,but one person asked should he pay for my kids and the other agreed did i ask for anyone to pay answer no i didnt,plus why arnt they responding or are you talkin for them

They've probably not responded because they don't want to argue with you further. I'm sure you do your best for your children, but I'm one of those who doesn't want to have to support them if you can't.

like to see you hit the skids kid.and see how you manage iv come a long way and battled hard to get back where i am now.and never asked or wanted anyone to pay for my kids,i see the people i have asked to respond havnt so now i have to deal with you.my words to you mate is butt out my beef is with the people who made the comments but if you want to carry on it will be my pleasure to respond to anything you have to say.

You don't have to "deal" with anyone. Once you start a topic on a public forum, you must expect comments. You're clearly an angry person and as such I cba to engage with you further. I'm inclined to believe that others feel the same.

the whole system does need a total rethink,i get what eddie64 was originally trying to say.they tried to put an attachment on my earnings using details from over ten years ago!the things they don't take into account (basic living costs)is plain stupid and the rules at the moment give the mother all the power which is not always the best.

From what I hear and read, the CSA hasn't got a clue and issues some crazy demands. Needs a complete re-think, as you say.

I don't think it's the fault of the CSA that modern day society sees more and more individuals having children by multiple partners. You'd expect financial arrangements in such cases to be fairly complex to say the least. More often than not the problems and wrangles that seem to come out of cases where people are being pursued for maintenance stem largely from the hostilities that exist between ex partners. It seems to be more about not wanting to pay money to an ex, rather than paying for the upkeep of a child.

If the CSA issue a detachment order to take monies from somebody's wages it's usually because the person has either refused to respond to correspondence asking for income details, or the individual has downright refused to pay the maintenance that's been assessed. If the level of deduction seems unreasonably high, it's probably because the CSA or benefit agencies have not been supplied with the correct income information.

but their calculations still don't take into account the cost of living.the amount my kids mother would be entitled to differs to that which I would be entitled to should they live with me,just another example of how out of touch our laws/government are.the csa has never worked and judging by the people I spoke to on the phonenever will!yet another mis functioning government agency,who'd of thunk?

If you begat children then it behoves you to look after them financially as well as lovingly. If you don't want to pay for them then don't have any.

dont pay it.

kids probably dont get to see it anyway.

who are you to chat bubbles like that to him?

you dont know him or his circumstances so keep your opinions to yourself.

Well said Ste.

Are you familiar with the circumstances enough to entitle you make this statement or is it only others who are not entitled to an opinion?

The break up with my wife was, to say the least, not exactly amicable, and at that time the CSA didn't exist.
After years of trips to various courts I eventually saw my daughter every weekend, usually from Friday after school to Sunday evening or Monday morning when I would drop her off at school.
Anything I bought her for mine I bought the same for her to take home so she didn't have all the "good stuff" at dads.
I avoided my ex as much as possible but as soon as the CSA were formed they were turned on me like a pack of rabid dogs, and with about as much intelligence.
They spent years trying to make me pay for a child she'd had years after we divorced (obviously not mine) their logic being that as the child had been given my surname she must be mine. This continued even after my ex-wife remarried and her new husband adopted the child.
I have always taken care of my daughter to the best of my ability, and yes despite problems with my ex I have even, on occasion, looked after her other children when the situation called for it.
It's a fathers job to look after, provide for and protect their children, that's it, that's all there is.

Unfortunately it's guys like you that are involved and pay their way that are an easy target for csa whereas the very folk it was set up to find manage to escape their responsibilities again and again

You let him speak for himself, I mean, who are you to attempt to stifle free speech???????

I understood that this was a forum for the opinions of members, so why do I have (in your silly opinion) to keep my opinions to myself? Have I misunderstood, is it only for those who don't want to pay their dues or for their representatives to shout down any who tend to disagree??

I stand by my statement - or do you believe that I and other taxpayers should not only pay for our own families or those of others as well? If you are not prepared to have children then do not have any - simple.

Fair comment, nem12esis. We are all entitled to express our opinions. I don't often agree with you but on this, I do.

read it properly, he does pay his way, the way your opinion sounds is revoltingly offensive and makes it sound like he doesnt pay anything.

he is a decient person and he does pay his way!

I think this guy should be respected.He is saying what is right.I like his posts maybe some dont.But i respect this member,Its xmas lets be a bit nice.

But he doesn't pay his way does he? The csa have asked him for money to care for his kids and he himself said "I can't afford it". You told me to read it properly, perhaps it is you who should do so and leave the poster to speak for himself so that the true facts come out, not your imaginative ones.

Why create a massive argument when you are on the periphery rather than involved?

first post by op says it all nem12esis and nobody is causing arguments here.

stick to what you do best with your photography.

i have no more to say on the matter.

Ste, I've read enough of your posts to realise you don't live on the same planet as the rest of us.

Thank you Candyfloss

I thought this post referred to Ste!! Beside that, it is evident that the OP is paying for his kids, as much as he can- the CSA seems to be wanting to suck out his life-blood!!!

Well he needs to pay for his children, (You say he does but how much that is the question, paying some nominal amount is 'paying' but is insufficient) I really fail to see why I as a retired taxpayer should do so instead! the csa is there to attempt to see that he does.

This is one of the problems in this once great country a lot those irresponsible people who procreate expect the country, in the form of the taxpayer, to pay instead. This attitude is absolutely deplorable.

This once great country, my mother had to take my so called father to court year after year for payments that was some fifty odd years ago, so it's nothing new !

50 odd years ago, benefits were not paid out for such things so the taxpayer didn't suffer. There was no csa either. If you watched the recent TV programme about the welfare state in those days you would be very surprised at how little was paid out in benefits. It was a stop gap between jobs and nothing else. If you didn't find work, you got nothing which is why people had to use the courts as you describe.
Now those with loads of kids get loads of cash, Sky TV, a free house, no council tax to pay, no prescriptions to fork out for,to get even the cap now of £25.000 pa one needs to earn £36,000 pa. This surely needs to be sorted so that those who procreate fork out in full, otherwise as I said earlier, do not have any kids. One has to consider the taxpayer, those on benefits pay nothing towards the benefits of others, but the poor old taxpayer does.

No it was not called CSA then but dress it how you like, it's all the same. Look up national assistance board my Mother was left with 3 children she was paid benifits from said N. A .B. The man who called himself my father was chased by the courts for non payment maintenance . And Oh by the way we never had Sky tv. Have a nice day !

It is far to simple to say if you have children you should pay for them.People get sick, relationships break down people become unemployed.People after relationship breakdowns still have to live and pay rent in another home.Every parent dreams of making a future for their children and it must be heartbreaking not to be able to support them. I am a taxpayer and I am more than happy to pay taxes to support people in need to have food and a roof over their heads. The National Ass Act 1948 gave everybody a chance and the 1963 Social Security Act extended the range of benefits.The 1948 Act Abolished the Board of Guardians which had previously been responsible for the poor including the provision of work houses.

One of the changes over the years has been an unwillingness by married couples to stay together "for the sake of the children". I'm pretty sure my own parents decided to do exactly that. Nowadays, partly because of the availability of benefits and partly because no opprobrium attaches to separation, couples separate at the drop of a hat.

Who would want to stay in an unhappy marriage 'for the sake of the children' in this day and age??? Not healthy for the kids to grow up in an un-happy situation.

I can't believe that it's any happier for a child to grow up without one parent and with the inevitable brainwashing that comes with that situation. I really don't know which path is preferable; both are unsatisfactory. Maybe the problem is that couples are too ready to have a child before they know whether they're going to stay together.

Exactly my point, too many unwanted children being born otherwise there would be no need for the csa. Marriage does make a big difference, having made a firm commitment 'Until death us do part' helps couples to stay together and to work at it knowing that at one time everything was hunky dory.
To refer to an earlier post by 'rossie' that not everybody can look after their children, still should not give cause for others to have to pay for their own children, their grandchildren and children of other people as well!! This guy was advised by another 'Do NOT pay' which gave rise to my response. The poster did not say he didn't have any money nor did he say he didn't have a job, he just objected to the amount deemed (by the csa) necessary to look after his children. It seems therefore self evident that what he deemed to be 'looking after his children' fell short of the correct mark. To tell him 'Do NOT pay' seems to be lousy advice and also to be out of order.

Sadly life is not black and white.

No Dilly life is not black and white but that does not mean that you should not support your children to a standard devised by the csa. Nor does it make 'Do NOT pay' reasonable advice, when not paying means that the tax payer has to fork out instead. They are not the taxpayers' kids after all are they?

The father IS a tax-payer!!!

So what does that have to do with it? It does not mean that I too have to pay for his kids does it? whatever is sorted out, it should be absolutely nothing to with me as far as contributions to the family are concerned, nor with any other taxpayer, I maintain it is his responsibility to look after his kids or as I said before, do not have any.

" I maintain it is his responsibility to look after his kids or as I said before, do not have any".

Bit late to lock the stable after the horse has bolted.

Couples can stay together dosent matter if they are unhappy.They can come to some mutual arrangement.A stable family does improve a kids wellbeing and mental development.If couples feel they need to shout or argue dont do in front of the kids.Sometimes the parents are worse than the kids.Icould go on but i best not.

Hey- ho, as long as it saves the tax-payer a few quid-


How are children affected by domestic violence ?
The majority of children witness the violence that is occurring, and in 90% of cases they are in the same or next room (Hughes, 1992). Children can 'witness' domestic violence in many different ways. For example, they may get caught in the middle of an incident in an effort to make the violence stop. They may be in the room next door and hear the abuse or see their mother's physical injuries following an incident of violence. They may be forced to stay in one room or may not be allowed to play. They may be forced to witness sexual abuse or they may be forced to take part in verbally abusing the victim. All children witnessing domestic violence are being emotionally abused.



Are the effects the same for every child?

Children can experience both short and long term cognitive, behavioural and emotional effects as a result of witnessing domestic abuse. Each child will respond differently to trauma and some may be resilient and not exhibit any negative effects.

Children's responses to the trauma of witnessing DV may vary according to a multitude of factors including, but not limited to, age, race, sex and stage of development. It is equally important to remember that these responses may also be caused by something other than witnessing domestic violence, and therefore a thorough assessment of a child's situation is vital.

Children are individuals and may respond to witnessing abuse in different ways. These are some of the effects described in a briefing by the Royal College of Psychiatrists (2004):

They may become anxious or depressed
They may have difficulty sleeping
They have nightmares or flashbacks
They can be easily startled
They may complain of physical symptoms such as tummy aches
They may start to wet their bed
They may have temper tantrums
They may behave as though they are much younger than they are
They may have problems with school
They may become aggressive or they may internalise their distress and withdraw from other people
They may have a lowered sense of self-worth
Older children may begin to play truant or start to use alcohol or drugs
They may begin to self-harm by taking overdoses or cutting themselves
They may have an eating disorder
Children may also feel angry, guilty, insecure, alone, frightened, powerless or confused. They may have ambivalent feelings towards both the abuser and the non-abusing parent.

My parents split up when I was 12 and I'm perfectly well adjusted and fully functioning. I think you're a bit out of touch. What would have been better for me? Two happy parents that love me very much or living with two miserable people?

Soon to change anyway. Havs a look for 'changes to the csa 2014'
It would appear the service is changing and parent s are likely to expected to sort it out between themselves, plus charges.
Dare say the solicitors and courts will come into their own again for such matters.
Does that make people happier?

There are many reason for families splitting up , not just violence and all the nasty stuff. Quite often it's affects families who have both parents working rediculous hours and the whole structure of the family life falls apart. There doesn't have to be fighting, argueing or any other mental torment. It just fails ,tragically.some women are required to work, do the housework, help children with homework, shopping, washing , cooking etc., after school activities, taxiing them here there and everywhere and then be the sensual partner in bed at night. For goodness sake, lets be honest about this, the poor mums are worn out . Thats when things start to go wrong, I believe. The husband/partner then starts to feel rejected and quite often makes it worse by straying and there are plenty of young unattached girls out there, ready to take advantage.
Thats my opinion anyway.

Sorry Granny but I find that extremely sexist.

I agree with most of what you are saying...apart from being gender specific. Some fathers do all the domestic stuff and mums have been known to stray too,for instance.

Agreed but most women with any sense would not jeopardize an already good marriage if she thought she would end up on her own providing for the children. Big gamble to take.

I have never heard such sexist claptrap!

You need to talk to more women then. See what they have to say.

Oh dear! Bollocks to the board games on Wednesday then,Rambo? lol

Why drag domestic violence into it? (I see you even have an acronym for it). It may be one reason for separation but I suspect more are as a result of infidelity. Maybe you should add to your list of consequences:
They may grow up to be well adjusted members of society.

I talk to plenty of women, thanks. From that comment, you are saying that a lot of women are sexist?
Lets analyse your comments shall we?



In red, you say that women work and do all the washing, cooking, housework, child rearing and initiate the sex? And then they are worn out, (the poor mums)! In blue, the husband/partner does nothing and feels left out so has an affair!
In green, you say that women wouldn't jeopardise their marriage by having an affair. So women don't stray, they are totally faithful?!
So, what you are saying is that I, as a single, faithful father who washes, cleans, cooks, transports and has never raised a finger to any partner but raised 3 children on my own doesn't exist??? I refer to my previous post... I have never heard such sexist claptrap!

Sorry to hear that Rambo, you sound very bitter.

You have not quoted correctly.
Red script failed to include working mums.
Green script I said ,women with any sense.
Neither did I mention anyone raising a finger to anyone.
My first post included at the end...that was my opinion, so you don't have to agree, but its still my opinion and you can call me any names you like if it makes you feel better.
Did their mother pay you maintenance?
I'm sure you did an excellent job and you should be proud of yourself. Happy Christmas

I bring DV into it as some people seem to think that marriages should exist in the 21st century with no equality just like they did in the 1800s. Of course- DV is not the exclusive reason for divorce/seperating couples. There are many reasons... The acronym in my OP is not mine- I copied and pasted an article.
However, I do use that acronym amongst many others, both verbally and written as a direct result of working with peeps affected by modern day social ills.

Everything is so black and white for those who live in the last century, with all respect.

* some peeps

I raised the point about the acronym because, to my mind, it diminishes the power of the original concept, which is of such importance that it needs emphasis, not diminution.
If you're quoting the work of someone else, it's courteous to include an acknowledgement.

You lived in the last century, didn't you?
Anyway, Merry Christmas.

So will somebody send me £50.00 each week from the tax payers if it is so trivial and insignificant. I mean why save the tax payer anything? Hey Ho!

Absolutley, domestic violence is not the most common reason for divorce, but when it is, I really don't think it can be related in any way to those looking for equality. Domestic violence is pure bullying and controlling, so how that can be part of the 'equality process' of the present century, I fail to realise.
The other difficult and on going trauma for children subjected to domestic violence is the fact that their parents, fathers and mothers more often than not bring new partners into their lives, at the drop of a hat hoping everyone will integrate as one big happy family. If it doesn't work, they have another partner to add to the mix. Natural parents can rarely be replaced emotionally.Maybe they will have to deal with half brothers and sisters or step brothers and sisters. This above all must screw the childrens minds up, and sets an example of how to behave in their future.

There but for fortune goes you or I, do not judge lest ye
be judged, which make no mistake about it we all will be
one day.

A reminder of Topic Question. To keep on Topic