Contact and Child maintenance

If a NRP isnt contributing financially then there is an readdress in the CSA. (which has it faults especially when dealing with self employed). It acts reasonable quickly.

However if contact is repeatedly denied there is no recourse etc court where nothing happens for years.

By suspending part of the cm payment, the PWC might just think twice about using the children in attempt to control the NRP.

Contact should only be withheld if there is danger to the children and i say that as someone who was in a violent relationship. Yes my ex hit me but he was never violent to my daughter so I have never stopped contact. In fact having our daughter in his life has been the making of him and he has become an excellent father.

Fiona,life will stagnate and die without debate and humans continuosly seeking ways to innovate and improve existing everythingsü . It is true there are measures in place already,but they are NOT working.And they are mostly punitive.I am talking deterrent.And it is now glaring they are not working,so much so that the government is looking at additional legislation(taking away recalcitrant RPs'' passports,putting them under house arrest or is it curfew etc)to tackle this problem. So yes,let''s do some wishful thinking and it might actually come to pass.

Well people can wish for what they like but the Government has agreed with the FJR so there will no link between contact and maintenance in enforcing court orders in the foreseeable future, if ever. The Government response was quite clear;

"These [contact and maintenance] cannot be seen by parents as commodities to be traded. Children are entitled both to receive financial support from both parents and to maintain contact with both parents, where this is safe. It is difficult to conceive how withholding either of these things meets the welfare needs of the child"

The proposed new measures are another string to the courts bow but I''m not sure how on their own they are likely to work any more than the existing ones. Taking away passports, driving licences and putting parents under house arrest etc are no more of a deterrent than the threat of financial compensation, community service, prison or change of residence. They may well not achieve the object of reinstating contact and/or the child may blame the parent who applied for the sanctions so effectively that parent assisted by the court brings about their own alienation.

Just because the government hasnt listen to NRP concerns re contact at the moment. Doesn''t mean that they wont in the future.

Many changes have started with people debating what should happen.

Just because it is the law, it does not mean it is right.

Laws are created by human beings and human beings are faulty. As are many laws. Not to question laws and authority is a fault in itself. If it was like that, then we would still be living primitively. All laws have the potential to become better or change.

The way I see it is simple: I pay monthly and on time and more than I have to, so that my children live comfortably. Ex refuses contact with no reason, makes my life and the children''s difficult and lies even to CAFCASS. Where is the consequences for her DUTY to the welfare of our children? Nowhere

I have to spend thousands of pounds to see my children, pay her child support to support my children, her and her BF. If I don''t pay in time (which happened once) I get a load of e-mails accusing me of this or that and threatening with that or this. Now that I have sent 4 e-mails asking to see my children, I received null back.

If i threaten with this or that I am seen as aggressive and she will prolly report me for harassment. Where can I report her lack of empathy and understanding? He zero consideration to the children''s well--being?

We live in a society where money is perceived and dealt with as being the paramount welfare factor. Well, I am sorry but it is not!

Adeolu wrote:

Right,put the claws away please..

Fiona,life will stagnate and die without debate and humans continuosly seeking ways to innovate and improve existing everythings:) . It is true there are measures in place already,but they are NOT working.And they are mostly punitive.I am talking deterrent.And it is now glaring they are not working,so much so that the government is looking at additional legislation(taking away recalcitrant RPs'' passports,putting them under house arrest or is it curfew etc)to tackle this problem. So yes,let''s do some wishful thinking and it might actually come to pass.

MathisFun is on point,for those who agree with my original post.This suggestion can always be tweaked to work if put in place.

Jslgb,am afraid i will not be drawn into commenting or passing judgement on individual cases.Every case has its merit et al and if you are 100% happy about stopping contact every so often,by all means go ahead.Posterity always judges all our actions.

Boysmum,deep breath,please.drdaddy is another contributor and he/she has a right to contribute. i actually agreed with drdaddy''s interpretation of your first post,but i let it slide because i didn''t want to turn this into a slanging match.No need to get defensive. And by all means,stop mis-quoting me please. I don''t quite get your last post either,or why you are querying me about my partner''s opinion on this(what''s it got to do with it?)but again,i will let it slide.

Boystomum,maybe i should ask you why you asked your ''one simple question''? or maybe not.

I guess I was interested in whether or not you understood the complexity of wanting the best for your children and of dealing with the distress and upset involved in relationship breakdown - whichever side of the fence you might sit on (including the ''side'' of the children) - and how that might impact on individual''s actions when blocking contact/not paying maintenance. I think my own response to this issue would have been different as a partner without children than a partner with, which is why I asked!

Im not in favour of contact blocking, but likewise, don''t think much of people who refuse to financially support their children (my ex being one of those so I have great experience in that regard). You have a very black/white response to the situation which is why I wondered about whether you had children - I think many people see these situations in various shades of grey.

I think Fiona has hit the nail on the head - there are already some pretty stiff penalties in force for the non-payment of maintenance (my ex is in court this month for an Order of Sale on his home, for example) but that doesn''t deter a portion of NRPs from ignoring their legal (let alone moral)financial responsibilities towards their children. I don''t think stronger measures for contact would have any greater impact on the PWC who block contact than the current measures have for the non-payment of maintenance. There will always be those who manage to get round it!

I hope your partner persists and in doing so, continues to pay maintenance. I belive, as do many, that the children are well aware of what has/hasn''t happened and are able to see the bigger picture far earlier and with a knack for accuracy than we might imagine. All any of us can do is know that we did our best with what we had and keep the evidence of that with a view to ''proving'' ourselves to our children in the future.

Well perhaps the answer is for NRP''s to be able to recover legal costs of enforcement actions/court applications from PWC; either directly or through reduced maintenance.

There is not much worse you can do to a someone than stopping them from being with their children. It is a terrible crime in my opinion, up there with the worst.

The bottom line is that the law in this country sees this as acceptable. Undesirable, yes, unfortunate, of course, but in the end... acceptable.

Not paying maintenance, though, is completely unacceptable.

This situation is fundamentally wrong.

Now I have always bought the argument that contact and maintenance are seperate issues - it is in the child''s best interest, etc. But, actually, now I am not so sure. How can it be reasonable to extract money from a parent, and then not allow them to see their child? How is that just? How is it in the child''s best interests? I suspect that linking contact and maintenance would help broker a compromise in many cases, which would in fact benefit children. Putting mothers in such a powerful position does nothing to help reach a balanced conclusion.

And by the way, it is no suprise that government likes to keep these issues separate - it is a matter of expedience, not justice - revenue is always priority.