Thursday 16 November 2006

Bill to axe troubled CSA unveiled

See EPC comment below story.

The troubled Child Support Agency is to be axed and replaced, under legislation announced in the Queen's Speech.

By July the CSA, which has been dogged with complaints throughout its 13-year history, had a backlog of 300,000 cases and debts of £3bn.

The Child Support Bill aims to replace it with a smaller body and a simpler way of collecting child maintenance.

Ministers hope it will encourage more parents to make their own arrangements, part of a more cost-effective system.

The bill ends the requirement that all lone parents with care responsibilities who claim benefits must also submit a claim to receive child maintenance, regardless of whether they already had a private arrangement.

Work and Pensions Secretary John Hutton has said the government would seek more powers to deal with parents who repeatedly fail to pay maintenance - such as suspending passports and imposing curfews.

Criticism of the CSA has ranged from accusations of snooping and unfair settlements to its failure to collect millions of pounds in unpaid maintenance.

EPC COMMENT: Both parents should be responsible for supporting their children financially. It should not fall to the State to support the cost of raising children simply because the parents neglect their obligations.

Equally, both parents should be involved in the emotional support of their children. Where the State goes so wrong is in allowing (often encouraging) one parent (the de facto custodial parent)to exclude the other parent (sometimes totally) from their children's lives. Until Government gets this vital component right they will make no progress in installing a CSA system that works!


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk_politics/6151424.stm

www.EqualParenting.org

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

The following statement is a copy of our feedback to NACSA regarding the CSA. ;-----
"Our company PJL Surveys are pleased to have been associated with sponsoring the NACSA website. Our company has traded for over 20 years.Over that period of 20 years our company has had to protect itself from many trading situations eg. Companies not paying their bills, theft & breakins (Forcing movement of premises on 3 occassions). It is our experience as a small company that the greatest threat has come unwittingly from the prejudice of our own government & the corrupt threat of the legal system. When staff experiencing marriage breakdowns are using their annual holidays to see solicitors to maintain a link with their children and also trying to afford to live on often miscalculated CSA payments it is almost impossible to motivate them in the workplace. Our company has chosen to protect itself against this threat by refusing to implement DOE orders when a mother refuses access to the children. On no account will our company financially benefit this form of child abuse. To any companies out there thinking of sponsoring NACSA I say do it ! The amount of hits to the website alone is worth the sponsorship. Our staff have often had positive comments when working around the UK from customers who have been visitors to the website. Good Luck NACSA." from: PJL Surveys, Port Talbot
Additional comments;- A toast is raised also to the efforts of EPC for growing & progressing in a positive direction. Additionally I would like to applaud the efforts of Fathers 4 Justice. All these groups have pushed forward with various issues where Families Need Fathers were struggling to satisfy needs of an evergrowing database of dads without a right to justice or access.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr Blair,
My partner and I ended our relationship last year; she is now due to get married and, as a result is trying to push me out of my son’s life.
Today I have been to the Citizens Advice Bureau where I received some very sad news.

On 1st December 2003 there was a change in the law, from this date on if the farther either married the child’s mother or signed the child’s birth certificate they were automatically given legal responsibility for their child.

It was heart breaking to be told that in the eyes of the law I have very little right with regard to the responsibility of James, my 3-year-old son.
You see, I signed his birth certificate in June 2003.

When the law changed, why was it felt necessary to exclude the fathers who signed before this date?

I have been told that I now must go through the courts to have a form signed which will give me back my legal responsibility. This is to a cost I cannot afford! Although I’m employed full time by North Yorkshire County Council for the substance misuse service I still have to live very much hand to mouth.

As the law stands I am being discriminated against because of my gender.
My ex-partner could leave the country with my son and I would have no voice
She has the right to exclude me from James’s education
She has the right to exclude me from his upbringing

I have the right to access, but only on her terms!

Why does the law never consider that some fathers do want to play a full part in the lives of our children?

Should this not be something the government should be in full backing of?

Why does the mother automatically have legal responsibility and the fathers have to fight for it at great expense?

What can I do? Where do I go? Who do I go to?

the reply I got to this letter was basically that, this law is to protect women who have left abusive partners.
am I wrong to feel victimised by this law?

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr Blair,
My partner and I ended our relationship last year; she is now due to get married and, as a result is trying to push me out of my son’s life.
Today I have been to the Citizens Advice Bureau where I received some very sad news.

On 1st December 2003 there was a change in the law, from this date on if the farther either married the child’s mother or signed the child’s birth certificate they were automatically given legal responsibility for their child.

It was heart breaking to be told that in the eyes of the law I have very little right with regard to the responsibility of James, my 3-year-old son.
You see, I signed his birth certificate in June 2003.

When the law changed, why was it felt necessary to exclude the fathers who signed before this date?

I have been told that I now must go through the courts to have a form signed which will give me back my legal responsibility. This is to a cost I cannot afford! Although I’m employed full time by North Yorkshire County Council for the substance misuse service I still have to live very much hand to mouth.

As the law stands I am being discriminated against because of my gender.
My ex-partner could leave the country with my son and I would have no voice
She has the right to exclude me from James’s education
She has the right to exclude me from his upbringing

I have the right to access, but only on her terms!

Why does the law never consider that some fathers do want to play a full part in the lives of our children?

Should this not be something the government should be in full backing of?

Why does the mother automatically have legal responsibility and the fathers have to fight for it at great expense?

What can I do? Where do I go? Who do I go to?

the reply was that this law protects women & children from abusive farthers!

Anonymous said...

I fully support the statement made in your EPC Comment.

Until such times as the Law links 'Allowed Contact' with CSA calculations no system will work.

Brian L. Avis

Anonymous said...

I am a mother who has been fighting for the past three years to see my children. I have been penalised because when I was with my ex husband I was the bread winner and he stayed at home. Because of this I am being treated so unfairly and have not infact seen my 8 year old daughter for two years now as my ex husband has posened her against me. Do not generalise that it is fathers who get the raw deal as this is not true. I pay my child for my children via the CSA and shall be glad to see them go as the letters they send out at appauling and so aggresive threatening to arrest wages if payment is not fourth coming even if it is actaully the banks fault.

Anonymous said...

Yes Mr Brown. When are you and your government going to recognise that children are being denied the love of both parents through brainwashing and other quite disturbing methods by parents who use their children for some kind of sick revenge against a loving parent. Don't you want to help these children. It's time that this abuse is recognised as abuse and the children should be handed over to the loving parent who really cares for them. These alienating parents use money against loving parents who will do anything to gain some sort of contact with their children. Waken up. it's all really simple. No abuse, no reason for non contact. There are more parents out there who wouldn't harm a fly and yet they are being discriminated against. Your a dad too Mr Brown.

Anonymous said...

It's interesting , taht the discrimmination is in the first place against the working parent...the breadwinner (which just usually is the father..of course otherwise the governent would be open to charges of sexual discrimination: that is very sneaky, because it is the same injustice an or woman, to have a 'de facto' prime custodian. That's where the discrimination lies. And, it's wrong - for parent and child.
COmments saying 'some fathers do want to take pat in their children's lives': be careful of your wording: this falls prey to the T.V sterotyping and dogma: ALL father s do, if permitted the FREDOM to.
WHich brings me to final points: the government should butt out of it, with policy: the natural law is clear...as much 'access as a parent wants, up to half the time if that's what any parent wants, or more if agreed. ANd so, when making decisions about housing, both parents should be considered as needing to be in a position of needing a family home. Because if the government permits 'divorce on demand' then that is what it should permit...equal housing rights - in the light of what I have said previously. After all, the whole planning system is rigged... I am not allowed to just build a home. And houses cost two people's wages.
All of these things have to be recognised. Our society is uncivilised, barbaric, due to government interference.