Encouraging?
Seems like this will only encourage the parent in a weaker financial position to take a deal worse for them than they would otherwise have reached.
The Department for Work and Pensions has indicated that estranged parents using its statutory service for child maintenance will be subject to charges. The plan is included in a consultation document on the future of the system, which outlines the priorities for the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission as it replaces …
Also no surprises if one of the partners votes Tory or has friends within the party, that they come off better then they otherwise would.
Seems its the CSA all over again, taking money from kids.....whats next, return of the workhouse to "encourage people not to be poor"
... I thought it would encourage the opposite. If this fee isn't monthly, then I can see the parent in the weaker financial position, being happy to pay the £125 in order to secure a higher statutory payment. If the CSA get involved, the "losing" parent can expect to have 33% of their calculated disposable income transferred to the other parent. The "sort it out between yourselves" system tends to result in smaller payments than the statutory system.
Maybe the DWP should brush off its bible to learn how to resolve parental disputes regarding children?
As it is, surely the fees they wring out of stubborn parents will just be added to the list for the divorce settlement. So no matter who initially pays the fees, the ultimate cost will be borne by the partner who "loses" the financial part of the divorce - with a huge multiplier added by each sides lawyers.
It might be useful for those mums who have just been left by one of those 'real men' who are happy to produce kids but have no intention of accepting any responsibility other than proving their sperm works.
Then they usually have the cheek to dress up in stupid costumes and bleat about 'no access'.
This post has been deleted by its author
I mean, they're meant to be impartial and competent at this sort of thing. It's not necessarily a sign of a conflict if a couple go to them.
And will this be a recurring charge? If so - and assuming couples have the option to make their own arrangements - how will the experts at the CSA be able to be sure the correct amount is being paid if they need to assess one or other partner's income?
The woman will get the better deal. No question asked. I mean, if my ex-wife, whom decided that she preferred another woman (!) to me, whom once alone got struck off being a foster parent for lack of care, whom couldn't get our daughter to school more than 10% of the time and had social services around every week could drag out the divorce for a year, retain custody, and involve the CSA despite my trying to come to an arrangement and despite her ending up with less money because of it, if she can get all that, then how can I possibly believe that the bloke, however saintly, will ever be better off with these changes?
This post has been deleted by its author
A whole new set of people to talk to on the phone that will judge you as evil purely because you are male.
I have enough of that with the CSA as it is.......
To be honest there is no 'fair' way of doing this, if like me you have an ex with a desire for mopney, you will will always end being re-evaluated year after year until you have nothing left.
New software, same mindset.
Your children are your life... then they get ripped away from you. The balance has been swinging from one end to the other with bugger all attempt at a fair middle ground so far. Sod that for a game of soldiers.
So, to all you young male geeks: Don't get married. Seriously, don't do it. Really, I mean it. Take it from the old farts in front line: BAD IDEA! Be selfish, after all, " you're worth it." ;-)
... apart, of course, from the public sector charging for the cost of providing you with a driving licence, passport, dental check-up, use of a car on a public highway, changing any record in various government departments (e.g. the Land Registry) and all the other real examples of the public sector applying direct charges for their services.
This was first bought out when CMEC was first coming to life as the costs of running the CSA and its first two failed IT projects got seriously out of hand.
It was originally suggested the NRP would pay but that went south when it was pointed out that the rate of re assessment demands was generally driven by the mother and those who like to use the CSA as a weapon can demand many assessments in a year (there is in law no limit) hence the change to make the applicant pay.
I had hoped that with a change in government we would see some effort put into further making the family court system work and start to bring the errant PWC's who ignore court orders to book but I guess its not politically expedient to do that, we have to pay for our kids, but if we win in the courts to be allowed to see them, well thats another matter.
please don't use that word, when referring to people who are using a government service.
Unless they can choose another provider of their own free will, that is.
I am not a "customer" of Birmingham City (careful how you say it) Council. If I was, I would choose to spent my council tax with a council that had a clue.
I think the idea here is that the parents CAN in fact choose to use another service - either reach an agreement between themselves (like my parents did, all those years ago when divorce just involved lawyers, not billion pound failed IT projects and bureaucrats as well), or get other arbitration, instead of running to the government. The CSA does have enforcement powers - but then, so do courts, if the parents reach an agreement without CSA involvement, and that only falls down when the useless waste of skin runs off to another jurisdiction to marry his own cousin, safely out of reach of any court order.