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

NBY -- I think I've mentioned this to you before, but that still counts as a link. *Anything* that directs people to a website is considered a link.

Mikey

Thanks guys!
Can't you just tell I've never put anything into Peer Review before!!

Mikey - Think you'll have to explain NBY, it might be me being thick, but I've never heard of it?

Moderators - Can you tell me why the link was removed in a previous comment?

NBY was short for "Not Banned Yet", the screen name of one of the previous posters.

No links are allowed in forum conversations. This is part of the House Rules. And Moderators don't post, so asking them a question here wouldn't help, anyway.


Mikey

Thanks Mikey, I just found that out

Maybe if anyone wants to send me a link to include, they could mail it to me, thanks

Ummmm... didn't see your email address. Mine is in my personal space, it you want to send me an email that I can reply to with some links for you.

For anyone who want's to suggest links, my email address will be on my space tomorrow night.

a tiny point. you mention absent parents, but you are mainly talking about the custodial and non-custodial parents.

A lot of absent parents end up that way because their ex partner deliberately makes it hard to keep in touch. (moving away, sheduling visits when it is hard to get, etc).

ps the child support agency has nothing to do with getting maintainance, it is a vastly unfair way of clawing back money for the treasury.

Even if the csa manages to get punitive payments out of the non-custodial parent, the other parent usually doesn't see any of it.
Their efforts to claw back money for the treasury often impact adversly on the parent child relationship as well.

xyroth, can I just correct you slightly there? If a parent is on income support, then you are right, the parent doesn't get the money from the CSA, but they do get their rent and council tax paid, interest free loans, lots of other help and awards. I think they don't get it in their hands to encourage them to go out to work if they can.
As I am on Working Families Tax Credit, I get the money that the CSA tells my ex husband he has to pay. All of it, and it's also not taxable, and doesn't affect my benefit.
Also the words custodial and non custodial are not always relevant, as (although I don't know about unmarried parents) neither I nor my ex husband have custody of my son. Custody is only awarded in the event of a dispute.

Mina, I would just like to agree with you on your points about the CSA, I have friends who work and get the money from the CSA.

Xyroth, I was using the terms 'absent' and 'single' as it states in the entry, I am a single parent and my sons father did what you said the single parent usually does, disappeared abroad. I work and get Families Tax Credit but no maintenance so I have taken advice on this subject from the CSA, DSS and friends who have their children living with them and ones who don't.

sorry he disappeared abroad, I don't think you will have much luck getting anything out of him.

I still think you need to look at how you are using "absent parent", as most of the people I know would use it to mean someone who has ceased contact with their children, and this is definately not how you are using it.

Ok, I'll have a re think, any suggestions, I can't use custodial and non custodial as they are not used in the UK unless a court has been involved.

Hmmm...

My first ex-wife (I have two) and I have joint custody of our children. There is no custodial and non-custodial parent. There is however, a residential and non-residential parent. I don't like the terms in the context of your entry, especially 'residential parent.' I think that 'single parent' more accurately states the case.

On the other hand, I am absent from my childrens' home, even though I am not absent from their lives. 'Absent parent' does sound to me like a perant who is absent from a child's life. Single parent and non-residential parent?

I'm not sure, but maybe somebody can go from there.

a difficult one. As a single parent that has married again isn't really single, although that's not mentioned in this entry.
The CSA call them the Other Parent.

Mina & NBY, thanks for that, will go with 'single parent' and 'non-residential parent', hope that satisfies everyone. Added some links for the USA, but I have put them under a sub heading ' Usefull links for the USA'.

Do I have to re enter this as the title has changed or will it carry on through the process?

NBY and whomever else it may concern:

The easiest way to share a non-BBC link is to put that link on your personal space, where it's allowed. Then it's only one click away, without all that tedious mucking about in hyperspace that e-mail involves.

Thanks GTB

'Absent parent' and 'parent with care' seem to be the chosen titles that the CSA use.....which I agree has negative connotations, but what's in a name ?

As an 'absent parent' myself, I know and so do my ex-wife and kids that this has no real meaning...but in the context of an article like this, it is important for those who the article is aimed at to be able to relate what is on the forms with the advice being offered.

oh and the article ? Magic...Magic

And on the subject of the CSA....the original idea was a sound one...why should the state support the children of people who are able but not inclined to support them themselves ?

Parents claiming benefits do not see the money, but those working do. Working parents can recieve the money direct (as mine is paid to my ex-wife) or via the CSA who charge the paying parent for this service.

In many cases the children are left with their mothers (either through custodial or common sense arrangements) who are thus not able to enjoy the same career prospects as the father as their working hours will be affected through childcare arrangements, or their pay through childcare costs.

I will of course admit that the present methods of calculating CSA payments are unnecessarily complicated and unfair, but this is apparently to change this year following the White Paper of 1998.

The main beef with the CSA would appear to be when one parent has set up home and started a new family and suddenly has to pay for the children living with his former partner. To my mind this is a tricky one, do all the children recieve a similar level of maintenance, or should priority be given to the 'new families' costs. I beleive that this is where the CSA has recieved it's reputation for 'ruining lives'. Having said that, I know of at least one man that has deliberately had kids to reduce his payments to his former partner...go figure ?