The mother can put anyones name down as the father (though as a legal document I would imagine it's an offense to lie on it) and since you know for certain that you can't possibly be the father, any challenege to paternity is a mere formality.surely you can refuse to have your name on a birth certificate without significant proof ? as if she can put anyones name on there, do i have to worry she might put my name on there ?
MW
Child support...
- Thread starter Kennysevenfold
- Start date
J please read my whole post I am not disputing they take 30% as I know they do from me. However This 30% is only taken on your net pay and then only after they have deducted your personal living allowance, rent (capped), and 50% of your pension costs.
If you think other wise you are wrong, either that or neither of you are claiming the deductions which are available to you.
He cant go on the birth certificate unless he is actually there when she does it, unless they are married (which in this case doesnt apply)
When my best friend went to go register the birth of her first child, she wasnt married to her now husband, she went on her own and they refused to do it because he wasnt there. I know this because I took her when he was at work.
For her second child they were married and he didnt need to be there, she took the marriage certificate along and they accepted that as proof.
He may well be named to the CSA as the father (if she chooses to do so) but he cannot legally be named on the birth certificate.
When my best friend went to go register the birth of her first child, she wasnt married to her now husband, she went on her own and they refused to do it because he wasnt there. I know this because I took her when he was at work.
For her second child they were married and he didnt need to be there, she took the marriage certificate along and they accepted that as proof.
He may well be named to the CSA as the father (if she chooses to do so) but he cannot legally be named on the birth certificate.
wierd im on my sons birth certificate and i wasnt there when i was named as the father.
my son is 5 nearly though maybe things have changed recently.
he had known her for a WEEK! a WEEK FFS! have you ever heard of SEXUALY TRANSMITED DISEASES? he should wear a CONDOM for that alone and SPERMICIDAL LUBE which not only helps you last longer because its nice and slippy it ALSO KILLS any SPERM if the condom breaks.
its more reliable than the pill
my son is 5 nearly though maybe things have changed recently.
is it the womans responsibility?
he had known her for a WEEK! a WEEK FFS! have you ever heard of SEXUALY TRANSMITED DISEASES? he should wear a CONDOM for that alone and SPERMICIDAL LUBE which not only helps you last longer because its nice and slippy it ALSO KILLS any SPERM if the condom breaks.
its more reliable than the pill
I agree, but what I'm saying is the following:
Out of an attachment of earnings order, I have to pay approximately £665pcm which is made up of:
£491.44p for monthly Maintenance charge,
£163 (approx) to pay 'part of' the arrears accumulated over the years.
Those two figures combined is about 45% of my monthly income.
BUT, on top of that, I also have to pay £100 to reduce the arrears quicker because they want those paid within 24mths.
I have 'about' £6000 of arrears to paid off, over 24mths (it's actually now about 18mths) I have to pay about £250pcm to get this paid off.
They couldn't legally take more than 45% of my salary, but they did acquire a liability order from the courts and to avoid the baillifs coming round I was forced to make the additional £100pcm arrangement.
Out of 'about' £1500 (net) per month I get, there's about £760 paid out for just one child.
The arrears for what it's worth (and as per what you said) is made up because of their ridiculous method of backdating.
Because the work situation here in Wales for the last 4-5 years has been dire, I've had a few jobs. But each job I start (like you said) the first 3-4 months you don't pay while they do the assessment.
So after the 4th month they say "OK, you owe use £500 per month, back dated to the day you started, so that's £2000 you owe us". This goes on and on, charges added, blah blah blah.
The £6000 I owed was down to nothing more than me 'not' paying the CSA, but rather going from several jobs and not paying while they did the assesment.
J I am in a similar situation to you as I pay £200 a month back in arrears on top of my normal monthly payment, however you can't lump the two figures together and claim this is your normal monthly payment, as it is not.
If both you and I had set aside the money whilst the assessment was being done we wouldn't be paying arrears now on top of our regular monthly payment. Our own mistake at the end of the day.
Don't get me wrong the old system is unnecessarily complicated and the department in charge is too slow in moving old claims to the new system to be recalculated. I got a letter the other month confirming my case would be moved to the new system by 2013-2014 which is exactly the same year as my son is 18 therefore pointless, and shows that if they wait long enough the work will cancel itself out.
However if I have a second child from my now partner and she makes a claim stating we have split up both my cases will be moved to the new system and be recalculated.
Using the CSA calculator I've worked out I would be paying out slightly less for 2 children on the new system than for only my son on the old system. With the benefit being I will still technically be with my now partner so effectively getting 50% of the money back.
During my never ending phone calls to the CSA I was actually advised by them to do this to reduce my liability. For them to recommend this is daft beyond words.
If both you and I had set aside the money whilst the assessment was being done we wouldn't be paying arrears now on top of our regular monthly payment. Our own mistake at the end of the day.
Don't get me wrong the old system is unnecessarily complicated and the department in charge is too slow in moving old claims to the new system to be recalculated. I got a letter the other month confirming my case would be moved to the new system by 2013-2014 which is exactly the same year as my son is 18 therefore pointless, and shows that if they wait long enough the work will cancel itself out.
However if I have a second child from my now partner and she makes a claim stating we have split up both my cases will be moved to the new system and be recalculated.
Using the CSA calculator I've worked out I would be paying out slightly less for 2 children on the new system than for only my son on the old system. With the benefit being I will still technically be with my now partner so effectively getting 50% of the money back.
During my never ending phone calls to the CSA I was actually advised by them to do this to reduce my liability. For them to recommend this is daft beyond words.
Last edited:
Copied and pasted from the government website
So if you arent married to your sons mother you would have done one of those things or the birth isnt legally registered.
yeah fair point Johnny6, I can see what you're saying.
And I do agree 100% with you about the "our own mistake", one thing that if I do get another job (or rather when), it's one thing I will be doing, just getting the £500 that I would have normally paid and putting it aside for when they've made their assessment.
And I do agree 100% with you about the "our own mistake", one thing that if I do get another job (or rather when), it's one thing I will be doing, just getting the £500 that I would have normally paid and putting it aside for when they've made their assessment.
I was stating facts re the OP's circumstances as quoted to me by someone i.e my wife who has worked for the CSA and CMEC for 10yrs+
If your circumstances are different then they won't necessarily apply in this case.
I've posted similarly on this subject before because frankly it winds me up that so many parents (male and female) feel aggrieved that they should pay towards the upkeep of their own children and then a huge number of people just wade in with made up on the spot 'facts' saying the CSA is the work of the Devil.
If so called 'adults' acted responsibly in the first place then we wouldn't have the need for the government to chase up money for children from the non-resident parents, as it is tax payers contribute way to much towards child care as it is without having to top up that avoided by the people really responsible.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
Best advice in the thread. In hindsight. Now the OP has the possibility of supporting a child after knowing a woman for a week.
Now that could be a very expensive shag.
I think you'll find that most people who have an issue with the CSA are those on the old system, a system which is overly complicated for no reason. A fact which is reneforced by the new system which is now in place, and from my own personal experience is much easier to understand, and results in a reduced liablity to the non resident parent.
That coupled with the never ending struggle to get anyone working in the CSA/whatever it is called now department to take ownership for anything really does grind peoples gears.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 2 Dec 2003
- Posts
- 1,026
- Location
- Inverness Scotland
Paternity test? Just a thought, maybe it's not yours = sorted
Given the relationship was brief n'all
I giggled.
No exaggeration, it was only March last year. For 3 or more kids its 45% of youre income. Ive got a booklet somewhere from last year, but i think its all changed since then.
They take this regardless of what other expenses you have. They dont take into account living expenses, they aint bothered.
And the marriage thing, i registered my first son by myself ( wife was still in hospital ), and she registered our second son by herself. We wernt together when she married our 2nd son but as we were still married i didnt have to be there
Last edited:
According to their website it changed in March 2003 as far as I can tell.