h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

1. How dare you describe us as `absent parents`, not even the csa call us that, we are called `Non Resident Parents`.

2. The "Child" support agency does not support children in any way shape or form, they give the money to "Parents with care", their words not ours, and they spend it on what they want, down the boozer, new garden shed, repairs to boyfriends car, new kitchen, whatever they want, the children in a lot of cases go without.

3. The csa is simply another way for feckless women to screw money out of men, by removing any responsibility for the womans action, she has total control, she can take the pill, the morning after pill, use a diagphram, insist on a condom, use a spermicide, they can abort, or she could keep their legs closed, or would any of that mean they would have to take responsibility for their actions.

4. If she decides to have a baby, the council gives her a house, the csa takes the money off the `father`, who often won`t get to see the child, the `wimmins` movement will say how badly treated she is, the government will give her more.

Come on.... can we have a reality check here, if a 17 year old boy has consensual sex with a 15 year old girl, that is quite rightly a serious offence, and should be dealt with as such, however if a 21 year old woman has sex with a 13 year old boy, she has her wrist smacked and told to be a good girl in future, oh and by the way the 13 year old will pay for the child, IS THAT FAIR AND JUST?????????

Why is it that the CSA don`t connect child support with child contact, but if the CSA reduce payments from the non resident parent, the parent with care can and will stop contact, don`t tell me it doesn`t happen, IT DOES. And you know what, the courts will do nothing about it, even if there is a contact order in place.

If the CSA were a private company, it would have gone bankrupt by now, caused by incompetence, having said all that, the csa can`t be got rid of, until there is something to replace it, and there isn`t anything realistic in the pipeline to replace it, this new system they are bringing in (eventually) they have known the computer system couldn`t handle it months ago, so why are they only now "revealing" it. It would be nice to see the BBC do an in depth investigation into the CSA and see what comes out, if they dare!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I presume researcher 191477 has had a bad experience with the CSA, but you also have to look at the other side of the coin.

True, the money does go to the parent with care not the child. But if that person decides to spend the money on a gas bill or food, does this not help the child? I agree that it should not be spent on constant socialising, but just because somebody has care of a child it does not mean that all their time and money needs to be spent on the child. Everybody needs a break now and again.

Also, there are thousands of men raising children and in response thousands of women screaming that they are paying too much maintenance. In every circumstance I presume the parent with care is stating that they are not getting enough money and the non resident parent thinks they are paying (or supposed to pay) too much, regardless of gender.

I was raised by my father so I am biased to the parent with care, however, it did anger me the comments raised about it being the womens responsibility not to get pregnant!!! Do men not have the power to say no or insist on condoms???? (for STD's if nothing else). I became pregnant whilst on the pill, and continued to have periods. Therefore, I did not realise I was pregnant until I was 5 months gone,and had I wished to have had a termination it would have been to late. What course of action would 191477 suggest in this cirumstance (I dread to think).

I believe it to be a sad reflection on the state of our society that we need the CSA at all. That said, fathers have a long history of abandoning their children, an attitude it will take more than the CSA to change. Children should not be made to suffer for the shortcomings of their parents so lets take a reality check in the words of researcher 191477.

Men do abandon their children with no thought for that child's wellbeing. There are fathers in our society who simply do not have any concept of what being a parent means. This is a fact otherwise we would not need the CSA. This kind of father finds it impossible to separate the welfare of their children from the vengence they visit on the mothers of their children and are blind to the fact that in punishing those mothers they also punish the children. I for one would welcome the day when depriving children of the financial support they are entitled to is treated as child abuse. For sure that day will come if absent parents continue to behave the way they do. There is a hard core of men lying and cheating to evade Child Support and these people will bring down draconian legislation on all of you because they cost the government to much money .

There is vociferous opposition to the CSA mostly from men. I have to ask why are so many men are so opposed to the idea of paying child support. Do you have any respect for your children ? I know that the CSA gets it wrong but most decent fathers I know have never heard of the CSA and would be ashamed if they had.

As for the CSA failure to collect child support is fundamental. It was never intended that the CSA should collect child support. The CSA was set up primarily to reduce the benefit bill to the Treasury not to ensure financial support for children as its name would suggest. This does not work because there is nothing in it for mothers on benefit so they do not co-operate and the fathers know the money goes to the Treasury so they do not co-operate. As for the mothers who are not on benefit it does not work either because pursuing child support on their behalf costs the Treasury money so the CSA does not pursue. We have a two tier system that discriminates against the children of mothers who are not on benefit. The CSA relently pursues the fathers of the children whose mothers are on benefit but will not pursue the fathers of the children whose mothers are working and will go to any lengths to avoid doing so.

I want a CSA that collects financial support for children.

The real victims of the CSA are children and the tax payer.

i was in a low paid job and having £60 per week taken from me, i have to pay for the upkeep of my children ,its the right thing to do, but they are on £1oo,ooo+ a year between them and i had to choose between food and bills.(see my entry in non residential parents)

I have an objection to alot of the replies in this thread; some of you insist on refering to the non-resident parent as the father. While this is probably the case 99% of the time some single parent families are Dad and kids (mine was)

I don't neccesarily believe that it is any particular person's responsibility to protect from pregnancy, however the majority of non-resident parents *are* fathers, and from personal experience I can say that if the parents split unamicably(sp) then it can be some time before non-residents even get to see their children. After visiting rights have been established, the other parent can effectively remove those rights at the drop of a hat, and it can take months for these rights to be legally re-established. The CSA is neccesary but very definitely in some other form.

One line on the whole of this page has stood out to me.....decent dads should have never heard of the CSA and those that do 'use' it should be absolutely ashamed of themselves. My sister is on the verge of loosing everything she has built up after leaving a mentally desructive man (Mr Paul Williams) Because after an argument between themselves he decided to stop paying anything toward the keep of his two sons to get back at her. Ten months on and the CSA are still dithering about getting him to pay ANYTHING! All this time he still thinks he has a right to see them as he is their 'dad'. Following them around demanding his 'rights'! And most laughable of all he see's what he is doing is justified. Because the CSA are involved he can sit back and pay nothing untill THEY tell him to do so. Not even offering to pay a voluntary sum that will be accounted for later on.
This is no father...this is an immature boy who is using this for ammusement. Sadly there are too many fathers like this in the world. Who have children and then have no concept of what to do with them. All i can think is that he has no parental instincts at all, even his parents don't bother...i think his whole family must have trouble knowing what 'real' love is. Loving your kids is showing them in more ways than just their birth certificate that has your name and theirs on it....yes, you helped make them but they then need a hell of a lot more than your name!
Even hoping that everytime he takes his partners two children swimming,to the park, to Mc Donalds. Everytime he laughs with them, tucks them into bed at night, helps their mum out when she needs a loaf of bread for their breakfast, even hoping this brings a little guilt,a little shame is a waste of time. We've tried that and it goes right over his head......Does he love his boys?
Don't look like it does it?
Maybe one day and it looks promising, she will find someone to look after her and her two boys the way they should be looked after. With love AND all the crap that goes with being a parent aswell. Financial responsibility! The whole of womankind would give my sister a hug