Discussion:
Leaving College/School
(too old to reply)
Red Melons
2008-12-08 16:59:55 UTC
Permalink
Any NRP's who think their liability to the CSA ends if their child stops
full-time education may be surprised by a letter I had from the CSA
recently:

"A child's attendance record at college/school does not determine
whether or not he/she is considered to be a child."

This despite the legislation stating that "A child is defined as a person:

* under 16;
*16-18 years old and receiving full-time, non-advanced education
or
* 16/17 years old and registered for work or youth training"

So, in the CSA's opinion, if they can get a child to register for a
college course and then drop out, they can still sting the NRP for
payments for next year or two!
Claire Rand
2008-12-10 17:26:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Red Melons
Any NRP's who think their liability to the CSA ends if their child stops
full-time education may be surprised by a letter I had from the CSA
"A child's attendance record at college/school does not determine
whether or not he/she is considered to be a child."
* under 16;
*16-18 years old and receiving full-time, non-advanced education
or
* 16/17 years old and registered for work or youth training"
So, in the CSA's opinion, if they can get a child to register for a
college course and then drop out, they can still sting the NRP for
payments for next year or two!
not suprising really, since thay put the CSA above and beyond the
courts, they can make up whatever they like. what you gunna do about it...
ManBearPig
2008-12-10 21:09:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Claire Rand
Post by Red Melons
Any NRP's who think their liability to the CSA ends if their child stops
full-time education may be surprised by a letter I had from the CSA
"A child's attendance record at college/school does not determine
whether or not he/she is considered to be a child."
* under 16;
*16-18 years old and receiving full-time, non-advanced education
or
* 16/17 years old and registered for work or youth training"
So, in the CSA's opinion, if they can get a child to register for a
college course and then drop out, they can still sting the NRP for
payments for next year or two!
not suprising really, since thay put the CSA above and beyond the
courts, they can make up whatever they like. what you gunna do about it...
1) Emigrate
2) Incarceration
3) Kill-crazy rampage

Those are the options as I see them.
Claire Rand
2008-12-11 18:46:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by ManBearPig
Post by Claire Rand
Post by Red Melons
Any NRP's who think their liability to the CSA ends if their child stops
full-time education may be surprised by a letter I had from the CSA
"A child's attendance record at college/school does not determine
whether or not he/she is considered to be a child."
* under 16;
*16-18 years old and receiving full-time, non-advanced education
or
* 16/17 years old and registered for work or youth training"
So, in the CSA's opinion, if they can get a child to register for a
college course and then drop out, they can still sting the NRP for
payments for next year or two!
not suprising really, since thay put the CSA above and beyond the
courts, they can make up whatever they like. what you gunna do about it...
1) Emigrate
2) Incarceration
3) Kill-crazy rampage
Those are the options as I see them.
well I dare say they would love option 2, all adds to the "tough on
crime" image these muppets like.

option one reduces tax income, why else would they have been given the
power to sieze passports...

option three will probably get you locked up for 28 days with no
questions asked, then shot on the tube "lawful killing"
veomar
2008-12-12 08:33:10 UTC
Permalink
Hi everyone,

Re.:-
Post by Claire Rand
option one reduces tax income, why else would they have been given the
power to sieze passports...
-

And what of those who fought a contact battle for four or five years,
got tens and tens of contact orders - none of which the court
enforced, and then finally emigrated. (I maintained savings accounts
in my child's name though, for the future). Do you think the
marvellous C-MEC might try to retrospectively seize passports of those
of us who have already emigrated? I am sure there must be some
European law against it. Perhaps they might try to make the ten-year
renewal difficult. It's getting like a police state back in the
bankrupt U.K.
ManBearPig
2008-12-12 20:29:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by veomar
Hi everyone,
Re.:-
Post by Claire Rand
option one reduces tax income, why else would they have been given the
power to sieze passports...
-
And what of those who fought a contact battle for four or five years,
got tens and tens of contact orders - none of which the court
enforced, and then finally emigrated.  (I maintained savings accounts
in my child's name though, for the future).  Do you think the
marvellous C-MEC might try to retrospectively seize passports of those
of us who have already emigrated?  I am sure there must be some
European law against it.  Perhaps they might try to make the ten-year
renewal difficult.  It's getting like a police state back in the
bankrupt U.K.
"Getting like"? You've obviously been away for some time. Lucky you...
Claire Rand
2008-12-12 20:49:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by veomar
Hi everyone,
Re.:-
Post by Claire Rand
option one reduces tax income, why else would they have been given the
power to sieze passports...
-
And what of those who fought a contact battle for four or five years,
got tens and tens of contact orders - none of which the court
enforced, and then finally emigrated. (I maintained savings accounts
in my child's name though, for the future). Do you think the
marvellous C-MEC might try to retrospectively seize passports of those
of us who have already emigrated? I am sure there must be some
European law against it. Perhaps they might try to make the ten-year
renewal difficult. It's getting like a police state back in the
bankrupt U.K.
wouldn't put it past them.

as for the access thingy. my other half hasn't seen his kids in a few
years, apparently the CSA can't release their address to him, but
obviously they can release his to her.

we were advised by a solicitor not to bother trying to get an access
court order, since they are unenforcable. well there is no penalty for
not complying with them for her it appears.

and as for protection of a european law.... surely you realise this lot
only enforce the laws that suit them, when a ruling goes against them
they leave things exactly as they are while the "consider" it.

retroactivly pinching your passport. yes it seriously would not suprise
me. but as long as you don't come back to the UK it will last until it
expires. personally if we moved abroad we'd be looking at gaining
citizenship of another country.
ManBearPig
2008-12-13 08:56:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Claire Rand
Post by veomar
Hi everyone,
Re.:-
Post by Claire Rand
option one reduces tax income, why else would they have been given the
power to sieze passports...
-
And what of those who fought a contact battle for four or five years,
got tens and tens of contact orders - none of which the court
enforced, and then finally emigrated.  (I maintained savings accounts
in my child's name though, for the future).  Do you think the
marvellous C-MEC might try to retrospectively seize passports of those
of us who have already emigrated?  I am sure there must be some
European law against it.  Perhaps they might try to make the ten-year
renewal difficult.  It's getting like a police state back in the
bankrupt U.K.
wouldn't put it past them.
as for the access thingy. my other half hasn't seen his kids in a few
years, apparently the CSA can't release their address to him, but
obviously they can release his to her.
we were advised by a solicitor not to bother trying to get an access
court order, since they are unenforcable. well there is no penalty for
not complying with them for her it appears.
and as for protection of a european law.... surely you realise this lot
only enforce the laws that suit them, when a ruling goes against them
they leave things exactly as they are while the "consider" it.
retroactivly pinching your passport. yes it seriously would not suprise
me. but as long as you don't come back to the UK it will last until it
expires. personally if we moved abroad we'd be looking at gaining
citizenship of another country.
Amen to that. If only it were that easy to escape the clutches of this
stinking toilet of a country with it's dead-eyed despot.
veomar
2008-12-13 10:21:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by veomar
And what of those who fought a contact battle for four or five years,
got tens and tens of contact orders - none of which the court
enforced, and then finally emigrated.  (I maintained savings accounts
in my child's name though, for the future). .... (snip)
... (snip) my other half hasn't seen his kids in a few years, apparently the CSA can't release their address to him, but
obviously they can release his to her.
we were advised by a solicitor not to bother trying to get an access court order, since they are unenforcable. well there is no penalty for not complying with them for her it appears.
-

Yup - "tell me about it." (as the saying goes). My solicitor didn't
advise me not to fight for contact, and so I tried negotiation (that
stopped after the ex-wife had got all the money she wanted), and then
had to resort to the secret un-Family Court to try to get contact re-
instated. I got just under THIRTY different contact orders over five
years. What with being only partially legally aided for part of that
time, and then having to pay privately as my earnings were just over
the legal aid limit for the other part of that very sad and difficult
saga, the lawyers collected round about £25,000 and all that at
2000-2004 prices. What a joke - just think of the holidays and
investments in their future a child could (have) enjoy(ed) with all
that.

It's a disgrace. CSA money must be LINKED TO CONTACT for the good of
our children, unless a court specifically orders otherwise. No-one
(in 99% of cases) should have to go into a witness box to testify for
the right to see their won children. Absolutely terrible. And the
symptoms of the social time-bomb all this causes (i.e. with children
being denied access to both their parents because of the short-term
spite of the parent with care) are beginning to manifest themselves.

At least they are now considering introducing community service for
parents with care who do not comply with contact orders. Five years
too late for my own case unfortunately but children never forget (some
things)...
Claire Rand
2008-12-17 19:51:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by veomar
Post by veomar
And what of those who fought a contact battle for four or five years,
got tens and tens of contact orders - none of which the court
enforced, and then finally emigrated. (I maintained savings accounts
in my child's name though, for the future). .... (snip)
... (snip) my other half hasn't seen his kids in a few years, apparently the CSA can't release their address to him, but
obviously they can release his to her.
we were advised by a solicitor not to bother trying to get an access court order, since they are unenforcable. well there is no penalty for not complying with them for her it appears.
-
Yup - "tell me about it." (as the saying goes). My solicitor didn't
advise me not to fight for contact, and so I tried negotiation (that
stopped after the ex-wife had got all the money she wanted), and then
had to resort to the secret un-Family Court to try to get contact re-
instated. I got just under THIRTY different contact orders over five
years. What with being only partially legally aided for part of that
time, and then having to pay privately as my earnings were just over
the legal aid limit for the other part of that very sad and difficult
saga, the lawyers collected round about £25,000 and all that at
2000-2004 prices. What a joke - just think of the holidays and
investments in their future a child could (have) enjoy(ed) with all
that.
It's a disgrace. CSA money must be LINKED TO CONTACT for the good of
our children, unless a court specifically orders otherwise. No-one
(in 99% of cases) should have to go into a witness box to testify for
the right to see their won children. Absolutely terrible. And the
symptoms of the social time-bomb all this causes (i.e. with children
being denied access to both their parents because of the short-term
spite of the parent with care) are beginning to manifest themselves.
At least they are now considering introducing community service for
parents with care who do not comply with contact orders. Five years
too late for my own case unfortunately but children never forget (some
things)...
I wouldn't say linked to contact, but it *should* be linked to the PWC
following court contact orders as they are made and stated.

essentially any payments are dependent of the PWC & NRP following the
rules correctly.

essentially a court order with no punishment for not sticking to it
isn't worth the paper etc.

veomar
2008-12-13 10:26:12 UTC
Permalink
Hi Calire,

Re.:-
Post by Claire Rand
retroactivly pinching your passport. yes it seriously would not suprise
me. but as long as you don't come back to the UK it will last until it
expires. personally if we moved abroad we'd be looking at gaining
citizenship of another country.
-

Indeed. That's very much been on the TTD list for a while. Some
countries have minimum time periods to qualify for a citizenship
application. So the pragmatic advice to anyone emigrating would be to
renew one's passport early, if it only has a short period of validity
left.

Hope this helps. Doubtless if the Nazis are reading this they'll see
what they can do to contravene EU law and get round it.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...