More failure at the UK Child Support Agency

	posted by Adam on 09:30 AM November 17th, 2004
	AngryMan writes "The UK government agency responsible for seizing fathers' income, the Child Support Agency, continues to be a national embarrassment. Story here"

<  "Mother" starves sons to death | 1990s UK Child Abuse Witch Hunt  >

  

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

national embarrassment? (Score:0) by Anonymous User on 11:55 PM November 17th, 2004 EST (#1) It's a global embarrassment that no one asks any critical questions about so-called "child support". Is it right to force an unmarried man to pay huge amounts of money just for having sex? Is it right for men to bear government-imposed financial burdens as a result of institutional anti-male sexism in child custody decisions? The CSA's troubled history includes a failure to collect £0.75bn owed to some of the UK's poorest families and having to write off a further £1bn. Are men not considered part of these "poorest families"? How does being forced to pay "child support" affect poor men? I'm not sure that CSA is actually failing here. The failure is the law that attempts to further impoverish poor men. 478,000 applications for support have been made over the past 18 months. Of these - only 61,000 absent parents have made any payments Wow, 478,000 applications. What a huge non-means tested private welfare system administered by government coercion. Looks pretty bizarre to me. And I'd guess that "only 61,000 absent parents have made any payments" refers to parents (mainly men, given rampant denial of equal custody rights) who made payments recorded by CSA. I would guess that many other non-custodial fathers nonetheless made unofficial transfers of money to their children.

Re:national embarrassment? (Score:2) by AngryMan (end_misandryNOSPAM@yahoo.co.uk) on 04:34 AM November 18th, 2004 EST (#2) (User #1810 Info) Are men not considered part of these "poorest families"? These impoverished men, impoverished by the courts, are not considered part of these "poorest families" because they do not live with their children, because the courts have awarded custody to the mother. not sure that CSA is actually failing here. The failure is the law that attempts to further impoverish poor men. You're right that the law is wrong, but by any measure, the CSA is still failing to do the job it was given. I don't see how anyone can deny that. I would guess that many other non-custodial fathers nonetheless made unofficial transfers of money to their children. Absolutely right. Many millions of pounds. Feminism will continue as long as there is money to be made from hating men.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]