Towton Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 As I understand it, the CSA was set up in 1993/4 to make the absent parent (not 'man' necessarily!) pay for the child/ren they had with their ex-partner? But does it work this way? I think not. If an ex-partner remarries and he/she- who chose to take that/those kids on- brings in income, why should that ex automatically get a load of extra money to spend on cigs, beer and holidays, which they mostly do! If it shouldn't be a drastically reduced rate amount, it should be paid in clothes/food vouchers, to negate the scheming habit of squandering it on the above luxuries, from which the child/ren doesn't benefit at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resident Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 I agree with having CSA. Many lone parents probably wouldn't see any form of support from their former partners (which does beg a separate question of why they had a child with them in the first place). And yes you're right. The absentee should pay the CSA and then the CSA hands out vouchers NOT cash. These vouchers would need to have the recipients name on it and require ID to cash them in as a measure to try to stop them being sold on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shazatko Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 it makes me laugh my partner pays 150.00 a month for 1 child and my ex pays 1.67 a week its hard enough on a low income. i dont mind having to pay something but my partners ex and her partner both work in high paid jobs but that doesnt matter were struggling on what he brings in as it is but hay ho he only as a yr left to pay were as my ex has another 10 and maybe them will be still with him signig the dotted line so really my partner is also paying for my son too :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aelfheah Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Sorry, shaz, that you are a genuine sufferer, and any other parent (male or female) like yourself, but many slappers- as bad as the absent dad/parent- are out to play the game. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shazatko Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Sorry, shaz, that you are a genuine sufferer, and any other parent (male or female) like yourself, but many slappers- as bad as the absent dad/parent- are out to play the game. ;-) to true hun makes you sick : Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 As I understand it, the CSA was set up in 1993/4 to make the absent parent (not 'man' necessarily!) pay for the child/ren they had with their ex-partner? But does it work this way? I think not. If an ex-partner remarries and he/she- who chose to take that/those kids on- brings in income, why should that ex automatically get a load of extra money to spend on cigs, beer and holidays, which they mostly do! If it shouldn't be a drastically reduced rate amount, it should be paid in clothes/food vouchers, to negate the scheming habit of squandering it on the above luxuries, from which the child/ren doesn't benefit at all? Don't you think that a parent has a responsiblity towards the child no matter what the other partner does or doesn't do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tattoogirl Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 I receive very little money from my ex through csa and I dont always spend every penny on my son! Does this make me a bad parent? I wouldn't say so as I pay for everything for my son on a day to day basis, clothes/school uniform/food/toys etc! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennie80 Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 If it wasn't for my son I would probably live in a freezing cold house with lights off and rubbish food (because I'd rather spend my money on other things!!!) What I'm trying to say is that when people are getting money from their exes they need to take into account that the kid needs warmth, entertainment, clothing, food and bricks to live in. I think most absent parents get a good deal to be honest and should actually pay much much more. Most, if not all, of my monthly income goes directly or indirectly on my son. I also agree that when a person re-marries this should be taken into consideration because children are part of the package - the new joint income is obviously a bonus for lighting, heating, bricks etc and in this case the exes circumstances need to be considered (like further children to another person). Whole system is too complicated to ever be fair to everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electerrific Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 There are many losers, both male and female, but plenty of freeloading single mums make a career out of CSA and Benefits. What would such women have become if they had been ever incapable of bearing kids? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aelfheah Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 It's financially acceptable for some thick slapper to lay on her back and have a dozen kids to different dads? No morals, no questions asked = kerching!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.