Father jailed for refusing to pay child maintenance

[Ardesco]

If he had given his ex-wife enough money to help her stop claiming benefits the CSA would never have been involved, I know this as this is exactly my cicumstances.

I belive the CSA sometimes went and re-evaluated claims to boost thier figures even if a couple had come to an agreement and were quite happy with it. It is likely they contacted his wife and said, how would you like an extra £300 a month, we can do that for you. She probably said yes and once the ball started rolling.....

[Let-Me-In]

Why should he have to pay £360 \ month if he has them 50% of the time?

The money is to cover cost of raising the kid, not to subsidise her lifestyle...

[Sysman]

I belive the CSA sometimes went and re-evaluated claims to boost thier figures even if a couple had come to an agreement and were quite happy with it. It is likely they contacted his wife and said, how would you like an extra £300 a month, we can do that for you. She probably said yes and once the ball started rolling.....

As told by a neighbour - he'd signed over his share of the house in lieu of maintenance for the wife, and only paid maintenance for the kids.

All went well until she lost her job, signed on and the DSS got involved. The DSS expected him to pay her maintenance in spite of the original agreement, and so it ended up with the CSA.

[ookook]

i am never getting married

[Gibbon]

i am never getting married

you mean never having kids,

but thanks in a small way for strengthing the gene pool.

[BrilloPad]

I suspect there is more than meets the eye here. The CSA are not automatically involved unless the parent with care is claiming means tested benefits in relation to the children. So either the ex-wife put a claim in or she was as I suspect at one time claiming benefits. If so then you the tax payer were helping him support his kids.

If he had given his ex-wife enough money to help her stop claiming benefits the CSA would never have been involved, I know this as this is exactly my cicumstances.

His ex put in a claim. He was paying for the kids anyway. One of the reasons I would never pay my ex a penny until she withdrew her CSA claim in writing. He is a good man who tried to do the right thing. Alas the good often get shafted.

[scooby]

Why should he have to pay £360 \ month if he has them 50% of the time?

The money is to cover cost of raising the kid, not to subsidise her lifestyle...

as someone who is paying CSA in a similiar situation, it is subsidised. it is reduced by x/7 when you have the child more than 110 nights a year (old rules) ie. i have my lad 3 nights a week and cos this is more than 110 nights a year i pay 4/7 of the overall total of CSA.

the major pisser with the CSA at present is that new claims are done on the new rules. assessing me on the new rules would see me at least £20 a week better off. but they wont change people from old rules to new. if i stopped paying they would go mental and take it direct from employer, or get me in another way.

The whole system is a waste of money. i forced down the csa route due to ex signing on, but now that has changed, we agreeing a figure and dropping the CSA involvement. she stands to make an extra £20 a mth (to cover extra high school costs) but then no one needs to know how much i earn as a contractor! we're happy with that.

[Maxamus]

Alas the good often get shafted.

the good always get shafted. Thats why i put in fraudently reciepts and expenses!

**** YOU IR!!!!!!!
C'MON GET ME YOU BA54ARDS !!!!

[andy]

the good always get shafted. Thats why i put in fraudently reciepts and expenses!

**** YOU IR!!!!!!!
C'MON GET ME YOU BA54ARDS !!!!

Knock Knock

[BrilloPad]

as someone who is paying CSA in a similiar situation, it is subsidised. it is reduced by x/7 when you have the child more than 110 nights a year (old rules) ie. i have my lad 3 nights a week and cos this is more than 110 nights a year i pay 4/7 of the overall total of CSA.

the major pisser with the CSA at present is that new claims are done on the new rules. assessing me on the new rules would see me at least £20 a week better off. but they wont change people from old rules to new. if i stopped paying they would go mental and take it direct from employer, or get me in another way.

The whole system is a waste of money. i forced down the csa route due to ex signing on, but now that has changed, we agreeing a figure and dropping the CSA involvement. she stands to make an extra £20 a mth (to cover extra high school costs) but then no one needs to know how much i earn as a contractor! we're happy with that.

Make sure you have the CSA dropped in writing...