Child Maintenance Payments on This Morning

Family Law|May 23rd 2012

Earlier today I appeared on ITV’s This Morning, sitting alongside Holly Willoughby and Philip Schofield answering viewers’ questions about child maintenance. The volume of calls, emails and tweets was high, and many of the questions about child maintenance followed the same theme.  There was a lot of confusion over the process that governs the obtaining of child support, and many problems with non-payment or under-payment of maintenance, whether spousal support or for children.

Unfortunately that is hardly surprising, given the CSA’s history. This began in the early 1990s, when the government of the day decided to remove child support from the courts. The new process was going to be computerised, straightforward and much cheaper.

Until then, child maintenance could be obtained through the courts. The fastest and cheapest way of obtaining such an order was to hotfoot it to the local magistrates’ court accompanied by a solicitor, who was usually acting on legal aid. The magistrates – a legally unqualified bench who nevertheless had plenty of experience of the cost of living and the tricks people played to appear far less wealthy than they were – would make an order. Usually it would take no longer than one or two hearings to settle the whole case.

Back then, arrears could be enforced by the same court’s bailiffs or the various other ways that still exist, such as an order for payment to be made directly out of income or a charging order over property and, in some extreme cases, imprisonment.  I followed this procedure many years ago with one household name who paid by return, not daring to take his chances with the judge. These enforcement methods, along with others, still exist today.

What no longer exists is the court route solely for basic child support. Magistrates’ talents are now probably underused, with regards to family work. That said, I do suspect that when the Family Court is finally consolidated following David Norgrove’s report and Mr Justice Ryder’s implementation work, the magistrates will be dealing with many of the unrepresented litigants involving straightforward work that is currently clogging up  the higher courts.

The history of the CSA and its 8,000 employees, failed formulae and almost £4 billion of uncollected child support has been well documented over the years. It is now estimated that a child maintenance case can cost between £20,000 and £40,000 to resolve. Multiply those figures by the number of “difficult” cases dealt with by the CSA, and is it any wonder the process has stultified?

And is it any wonder that many of This Morning’s callers expressed their frustration and anxiety because they had either been unable to secure the correct level of child maintenance, or having got it, had seen neither hide nor hair of it?

Even today, almost twenty years after the CSA was founded, many people are clearly confused by the amount of child maintenance to which their household is entitled. When they believe that the amount awarded is incorrect, they are confused about best to challenge the decision. Of course, if the non-resident parents fails to pay the sum awarded, these problems are compounded.

If any of this applies to you:

As I mentioned on the programme, there are various courses of action that you can take.

The Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission website has two functions. It will assist you to reach an agreement and… it will administer the CSA.  Certainly, you have nothing to lose if you try the parenting agreement recommended on the site, calculating your own entitlement in agreement with your former partner.

You will get plenty of encouragement from CMEC to reach such an amicable solution. Of course, such a solution will relieve the CSA of any further liability, but it will also mean that you must have absolute confidence in your former partner’s honesty and integrity. You must be confident that he or she is indeed earning what you are being told, because there is no court-ordered process to ensure verification, and only the CSA has its own special powers to check in ways that citizens do not.

And your agreement will have no teeth. If your former partner decides to stop paying, you won’t be able to enforce the agreement and in many cases, you will have to start all over again with the CSA because you can’t obtain a court order as you would have done 20 years ago.

Crazy? I think so. Family financial settlements are dealt with by the court, so why exclude basic child support? But as I’m an Officer of the Court by virtue of being a solicitor, I do think access to justice should be through the court. I suppose my view is predictable!

You could also visit the Gingerbread website, which I mentioned on the programme. Gingerbread has already contributed a great post on this blog, on the topic of child maintenance. Do pay the site a visit: it gives excellent advice about dealing with the CSA and in particular, about what you should do if you have a low order yet believe your former partner has capital in excess of £65,000 (excluding their home), or has undisclosed income, or has diverted income, or is simply living above his or her “means”.

So what other questions were asked on the programme?

This Morning viewers also asked questions about the non-payment of spousal support, which is also commonly called maintenance. That is income payable by one spouse to the other on divorce, to meet income needs. One caller wished to vary the order. Again, I suggested using the magistrates’ court as a quicker, cheaper and less complex option. This was because in her particular case there was no complex law involved, and it was simply a decision that needed to be made on the facts.

Another caller, who I answered privately after the programme because we ran out of time on-air, queried what happens if the person making payments goes into prison. The answer is straightforward: the payments stop.

Finally, one question would have been perfect for a family law practice and procedure exam. Can arrears under a maintenance order be enforced more than  ten years later?

The answer: consider section 32 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, which requires permission of the court to enforce any arrears more than 12 months old, alongside section 24 of the Limitation Act 1980, which bars fresh actions on a judgment over 6 years old. Read Rayden and Jackson 18th Edition, together with the recent case of O’Farrell v O’Farrell.

Personally, I believe that even if enforcement proceedings (excluding bankruptcy) aren’t statute barred, section 32 is, on the face of it, too much of a hurdle. Would you have imagined that such complexity would have arisen on a morning television show? I didn’t – but still, I dealt with it!

On another note…

It’s good to be back in London. At the ITV studios I bumped into Sir John Major, Freddie Flintoff, Lionel Blair and Sir David Attenborough in the space of an hour!

What’s more, the city is looking fab. I have never seen so many brand new taxi cabs on the streets or London looking so pristine. I wonder….is there a celebration or two scheduled over the next few days and weeks?

The founder of Stowe Family Law, Marilyn Stowe is one of Britain’s best known divorce lawyers. She retired from Stowe Family Law in 2017.

Share This Post...


  1. DT says:

    Very interesting Marilyn. I know nothing about what you talked about today and so it was very useful.

    If Philip Schofield is SO averse to lawyers being instructed/paid for acting for clients in such matters when it could be sorted out between the individuals, (and this is not the first time he’s expressed such views), then why on earth bother inviting a (top) lawyer onto the show when discussing this subject matter?!

    I wonder if he did his own conveyancing when he bought his house!


  2. Marilyn Stowe says:

    Thanks DT. Very kind comments.
    Actually I dont take any offence, he makes an interview sparky and he’s really nice!

  3. DT says:

    What I like about these kinds of articles (and the many that you cover on the blog),  is that they’re relevant to so many different kinds of practitioners, not just traditional family lawyers.

    I work for an Local Authority and so divorce, settlements, CSA payments etc. aren’t part of my everyday, daily work – although outcomes very much affect the work I do, so having a real gamut of topics is so helpful, especially as members of the public are not my clients although I have dealings with them.

    From my iPhone

  4. DT says:

    Sorry about the from my iPhone bit, I did a cut and paste from my phone and it got included; sorry!

  5. Mr.Conway says:

    Magnificent T.V. Performance. You explained difficult issues very clearly.

  6. Marilyn Stowe says:

    That’s very kind of you.
    Many thanks

  7. JamesB says:

    This is not like Greek debt. The Greeks borrowed the money. these fellas did not. It is not fair.

  8. JamesB says:

    p.s. Philip Schofield is a distant relative of mine, or rather my ex wife.

  9. DT says:


    James, you are not comparing like with like.

  10. JamesB says:

    urm, well, yes, I am, if the Greeks should be allowed to default, as they have been, then so should these guys. Most of them don’t even get to see their children, and have never had the choice on if or how to bring them up. They are not at fault, it is wrong to have this broad brush ‘ejaculation tax’ then say people are bad if they don’t pay. That is completely crazy. THAT is the root of the croblem, Crazy Law!

  11. JamesB says:

    Except the Greeks are worst, they actually owe the money in the first place, whereas these people do not. Just because someone calls you a bad parent and charges you and calls you a deadbeat dad and at fault and in arrears etc. , doesn’t make it true. Indeed the opposite is often the case with the resident paren having locked the man out and changed the locks and moved the boyfriend in. sic.

  12. JamesB says:

    it is sick to pursue the man in such a scenario as the law does and that is why it struggles, because it is amoral and contrary to natural law.

  13. JamesB says:

    They only spend it on drugs when they get it anyway and the children suffer even more.

  14. JamesB says:

    Of course, I’m speaking from experience, whereas the rest of the expert commentators have not been made liable for such bad law.

    Also, you are not given the option of bringing up your children or paying maintenance. If it were up to me, I’d bring them up. The whole thing (cmec / csa) stinks and anyone who works there or promotes that idea is like a concentration camp guard ‘just obeying orders’, morally it is indefensible.

  15. DT says:


    James – once you have a child, you acquire certain responsibilities and if you have the means, you must contribute to the raising of that child, and most people see that as fit and proper in a democratic society. Nobody is forced to become a parent, one chooses to; admittedly, some give it more thought than others. 

    Financially responsibility cannot just be discharged because an individual doesn’t think he/she should have to contribute to the upkeep of dependants – if men don’t want to be financially liable, they have various options so as to ensure that they don’t become so.

    The Greek situation is different. They, like many economies, have been hit by the global recession; their dire situation was then severely compounded by years of fiscal recklessness and inept taxation enforcement. 

    Everything in life has consequences – whether you are spending money you don’t have, or producing children irresponsibly; however, we are all responsible for our actions whether we like it or not.


  16. JamesB says:

    i spent ages typing and lost it. I havent got time to do the lot again. 1. My ex said she was on the pill and wasn’t. 2. News of the world = democracy. 3. Greek debt was self inflicted, csa isnt. 4. This policy is promoted by hysterical women and narrow minded people. 5. I cant vote for any party that promotes csa. 6. No men called in this show and that symbolises how this policy is disenfranchising men and women, by removing accountability and blame from women and is symbolic, like greek debt, of greed being rewarded and the failure of the welfare state. It is evil.

  17. JamesB says:

    I have nothing but respect for those who evade or seek to evade the CSA or choose jail or emigration over paying. That is all completely respectable and understandable for the reasons i have mentioned which you have not answered apart from saying always wear a condom, which is a stupid argument.

  18. DT says:



    1. Men and women are both empowered to take matters of contraception into their own hands. If one party wants to ensure that there is not an unwanted pregnancy, then there is an abundance of free and accessible information available. I do not believe that contraception should be the sole responsibility of one party – “it takes two to tango”.

    2. The NOTW did not operate democratically, it if had, there would have been transparency which there clearly wasn’t. The conduct and practices of some had reached such a low point that a long established newspaper just had to go.

    What is more, as a democracy, we subscribe to the European Convention of Human Rights which affords people a (qualified) right under Article VIII to a right to a private life. This clearly was being not being observed as settlements would indicate such.

    3. Greek debt, as you rightly point out was self-inflicted, however, as I have said before, so is having to take responsibility for one’s own dependants. 

    What is more, parents should be made financially accountable for their children. Why should you or I have to fund the raising of other people’s children? I don’t expect the rest of society to fund my responsibilities, and nor should I.

    4. What evidence do you have to support your view that the policy is promoted by hysterical women and narrow minded people?

    5. For obvious reasons, I think that all of the major parties support the CSA (or similar).

    6. From that clip alone, it was impossible to say as to whether any men called the show.

    Women probably did represent the majority of callers, however, they are clearly the ones left “holding the baby”.


  19. JamesB says:

    left holding the baby, lol, wish I had that lifestyle choice, with maintenance and a council flat. Bring on the male pill, then we see which of us 2 are right.

  20. JamesB says:

    till then i suppose we nrps have to keep on taking this abuse from ignorant people.

  21. DT says:

    Left ‘holding the baby’ is the only option for those who have selfish, thoughtless and wreckless former partners, it’s not a choice.

    Few women would trust men to take the pill however it would make a change; women couldn’t be accused of ‘trapping’ innocent and unsuspecting men!

  22. DT says:

    Sorry, reckless!

  23. JamesB says:

    I disagree, it is often, indeed usually their own choice, then the men take the abuse for it through no fault of their own. As you have just shown. Anyway, enjoy the weekend, I intend to, cheers.

  24. Bewildered ! says:

    In response to James B and his various posts. I note your comment about your ex saying she was on the pill when she was not. There is obviously a trust issue with some of your comments that set aside, there is nothing to stop a man using a condom! As for your comment that such suggestion is a stupid arguement I fear that it is actually you who does not want to accept that you played a part oin the creation of the child. If you do not want more children have a vasectamy- they are free on the NHS and wont therefore cost you a penny! It takes two to tango ! It also costs a fortune to raise children, if one person does not want to risk the implications of having children then they should not relly on the other to solely provide the contraception.
    With regard to those who do not get to see their children there are remedies avaliable through the courts and many charities avaliable to assist contact. In any event just because a parent is not having sufficient contact it is no good reason to stop child maintenance payments. If a parent with custody of the child is miss- spending money on drugs and drink then there is possibly a good ground for custody.
    As for life style choices in holding the baby. I have never heard as much tripe! You clearly are truthful if yhour remark that you have little contact otherwise you would know all too well that being the parent raising the child is a 24 hour job with more lows than highs in the early years. If you feel that you could do a better job perhaps you should look at the possibility of obtaining child tax credits and sharing some of the custody and you will then be havng your access as well s your life style choice.
    I think the bottom line to your comments is that you begrudge your own situation and unfairly beleive therefore that the law is wrong. I hope that your child does not grow up with any knowlege of your opinion on these matters as they will have a poor relationship with you more through your attitude then the circumstances.

  25. JamesB says:

    We are not going to agree. I will point out a factual error in your post though. I have three children, two with my ex wife, and the one you refer to with my ex girlfriend. Yes, I do resent being treated as a walking wallet, that qwas not what I signed up to on any of the three occasions and is where the csa argument doesn’t hold.

  26. DT says:

    Your signing up was implicit when you fathered a child. It’s not optional.

    That’s the deal James. If you don’t like it, make sure that it doesn’t happen.

    What you sign up to IS within your control.

    Enjoy your Jubliee weekend.


  27. JamesB says:

    No, child maintenance is not implicit everytime you have sex. I suppose it’s like women and rape, if men are to sign a document that each time is consensual, then women should sign a document each time that the man is exempt from child support, or not. As I say, this approach (your’s) is unrealistic. Cheers, u2.

  28. JamesB says:

    A necessary type of pre-nup / pre-sex in order to avoid the unfairness I have mentioned above, which is not just theory, but is destroying our society in reality and disenfranchising millions and bringing up children in a bad way.

  29. DT says:


    You rape analogy is an unfortunate one and yet still fails to further your argument.

    I have no further comments.

  30. JamesB says:

    There is one last point I would make, and that is what would make me think and perhaps change my mind. That is, if I ever come accross a Non Resident Parent saying how happy they are to be so and pay child support. I have never come accross such a statement, just people demanding that they be penalised for having sex. But you are right, we are repeating ourselves and going round and round a bit. I do hope government intervention into child support becomes less and less as the larger such intervention it is the more society has failed. By encouraging it government are making things worse through law of unintended consequences encouraging women to leave their men and rely on government instead.

  31. Observer says:

    DT –

    Your idea of ‘signing up’ is a good one.

    It’s just unfortunate that it does not work the other way, i.e., that when dad has shared care or full care (in the .0034% of cases that that happens), he is for some reason still expected to pay.

    Were it also the case that ‘signing up’ meant that you could not simply pull allegations out of a hat (with the help of your counsel) after separation in order to get the man you signed up with automatically removed from the child’s life too.

  32. Lukey says:

    “With regard to those who do not get to see their children there are remedies avaliable through the courts and many charities avaliable to assist contact. ”
    That’s a naive statement, the remedies don’t work – the courts won’t enforce them because the primary carer can just make wild accusations and the courts just accept those accusations as possible and therefore do nothing.

    In any event just because a parent is not having sufficient contact it is no good reason to stop child maintenance payments.
    Yes it is, a parent should not be forced to pay and have no contact – that’s ludicrous – what should happen is if contact is not observed then the primary carer should lose that role.

    The current way it operates is a scandal.

  33. JamesB says:

    I think it would be best for all to scrap the csa and put the matter back to the family courts to stop the unfairness and bring back judges discretion at least.

  34. DT says:


    I’m stunned!

    You have habitually complained bitterly about courts and judges.

    You have consistently said how they should keep out – and now you’re saying they should be brought back to introduce fairness and discretion!

    Make your mind up!

  35. JamesB says:

    I am not contradicting myself. CM payments were lower before the csa started encouraging couples to split and their immoral and amoral formulas promoting single parenthood.

  36. Observer says:

    James is on the mark here. The CSA effectively exists to keep women parasitical on men; it is an institution shot through with the most patriarchal form of sexism imaginable.

  37. Vari says:

    Just come across website, and sorry this is a long comment.

    Firstly I am a mother and a grandmother, secondly I unfortunatelly have to side fathers and with the unfairness of our whole system with regard to fathers. (because fathers are mainly the non-resident parent).
    To me it is the child who comes first. It is paramount children see have contact with their fathers regardless of whether child maintenance is paid or not.
    I stuggled bringing my children up on my own with not help from their father and the CSA were of not help when I needed financial support for the children. But there is no way on this earth I would have stopped him seeing his children, if fact, I tried my best to encourge more contact, alas he eventually abandoned them. That was his choice and he missed out. I also never ‘bad mouthed’ my ex husband even though I often felt like. They are in contact with him now, though will never forgive him as he has never denied the fact ‘he’ stopped seeing them.
    I find that mothers these days are only interested in ‘money’ and do not put their children first. I will give an example
    My second husband had two children, his then wife moved her new partner in. He had his children one third of the year, and he paid a mutually agreed maintenance for his children set at the times of his divorce. \However, she contacted the CSA when he met me and finding out that if she stopped my husband having contact with his children she could have more money – So you guessed it thats what she did and he has not seen his children for 5 years! He also left 100% of their joint finances to his ex wife so that this wouldn’t happen?
    My take on this is if the resident parent stops contact then she cannot claim for more money that is pure greed.
    Another observaction is that many women after divorce want nothing to do with their spouses, however once you have a child that is never going to happen is it. So what then happens is, fathers are denied access to their children. My son is presently going through the courts as his ex wife has denied him contact even though he has a court contact order in place. Hence I do not see my grandchild anymore either. We will see what happens when an enforcement order is in place. But I will not hold my breath.
    Is anyone out there thinking about these children?
    I agree with the comment that a pre-nuptual/pre (making a child) should be somehow put in place, where a wife or father with care cannot stop contact.
    I listened to so many parents and grandparents in the main fathers and paternal fathers who are being thrust ‘out of the picture’ yet a child is not a possession and should have contact with both sides of their family.
    I also have an aquaintance who has never had a penny off the father of her child, yet she told me no matter how mad she gets she would never stop him seeing his child, which he does every weeken.

  38. Jason Wallace says:

    I have just seen your comments about The Child Support Agency.

    It is flabbergasting to see the amount of effort which The Child Support Agency engage in when dealing with people who actually interact with them while at the same time completely failing to chase the parents who actually are conning the system.

    If your figures of £20,000 to £40,000 are correct then some simple maths can come into play here. Let’s assume the lowest figure of £20,000 and assume for simplicity’s sake that The CSA are involved for 10 years in a case. The means that The CSA are costing the tax payer £167 per month per case to administer. Based upon The CSA’s own figures of 15% net income payable for the first child then for someone earning less than £13,000 net (£16,000 gross) then it would be more cost effective for The CSA to just give money straight to the PWC.

  39. Gary says:

    as a absent father whos ex will not let me see my two boys and pays £1700 a month csa …… who is out there to help me …???????

  40. mark dewis says:

    the ammount of csa i am having to pay at the minute is crippeling is putting me further into debt ….i have spoken to the csa and they don.t show any interest..wot can i do….my circumstances have changed but still the csa wont budge… on the verge of giving up my job

    • Marilyn Stowe says:

      Dear Mark
      Really sorry you are in such distress. Why not get in touch with this organisation?
      They may be able to advise you as they are independent of the CSA. They should be able to advise on what to do and how to appeal against their decision.

  41. JamesB says:

    more like cmoptions are not independent of the csa, they are the same organisation.

  42. Friend says:

    Probably the European Court of Human Rights is the only organization that one could get in touch with about such things.

    It’s good to keep MPs informed about the well-known injustices committed by the CSA toward fathers, but I wouldn’t count on the Minister of Women and Equality for sympathizing with you and condemning unequal treatment, because the government has an interest in seeing fathers pay so that the state doesn’t have to pay for all the messes it creates.

  43. JamesB says:

    I would have thought politicians, especially Conservative ones would have realised that NRP fathers are voters too. They should. All this gay rights, femininazi politics, pro female bishops and first born children regardless of sex. Cameron is the most left wing elected PM we’ve had since the 70s. Hence why he couldn’t win an election at Fifa if his name was the only one on the ballot paper. Posh totty, though, just needs to be careful he doesn’t drop the soap in the shower with Bill Cash around.

  44. Hugo says:

    Can anyone please justify how fair it is for a father with PR and as well as a shared residence order worded by the court NOT by himself be reasonably expected to pay child mentenance where both parties share daily care 50/50? Not to mention that the woman gets the child tax credit, child benefit, becomes priority for housing benefit support where the man becomes a by stander and labeled an absent parent; yet the people making these blunt unreasonable law re being voted in by human beings. The sad truth is right there before them staring in their faces and they just ignorantly pay deaf ears to it and river blinded with this constitutionalised type of exploitation. Despite all these payouts to women where there’s a shared resident order in place yet the woman still want the man cut to fragments for them to eat just becos the unsuspecting man had a child with a WOMBman. I am no expert view but in my WISDOM called common sense; I rule.. if a woman feels raising a child with all these support from welfare system is still not enough other than a man is brought and slaughtered. She should give up her role and the man would gladly relieve her and take over with no further strain and waist of tax payers money on some ruthless greedy irresponsible Jezibels of modern times who should get a life by starting with some “RESPECT” for Family.
    And to the system of government I am totally disgraced and embarrassed by their encouragments to these injustice. Where the general notion of an average growing young girl in today’s society is that if you want sure lucrative business .. Get pregnant first, kick the man out then open an account for benefits to start flowing; and for that reason a man is now stripped off his pride and authority in a home and yet the authority still play ignorant to these.
    My opinion might not make any difference or even move a stone an inch but I sure believe in the natural law of retributive justice. To them who think they re rich and can afford to pay what ever maintenance… Just wait! What goes around also comes around; if u don’t feel it financially I can bet u must surely get hit by the psychological and emotional pinch of it. “WE RE ALL IN IT” I rest my case now.

  45. JamesB says:

    Hugo, you write well, especially, “a man is now stripped off his pride and authority in a home and yet the authority still play ignorant to these.” I also agree that the approach is unfair and destroying society by motivating the breakdown of relationships.

  46. Friend says:

    Hugo, it’s about making sure that women remain in their place as quasi-animal sexual reproducers, and that men get to go on pretending that they represent the civilized gender. There isn’t a more patriarchal organization than the CSA.

    The irony is that some very delusional groups that claim to be working on behalf of women actually support the continuance of this gender discrimination. Anything to smear the face of the other gender in the dirt, even if it means prostituting and objectifying oneself.

  47. Hugo says:

    Thanks for that James. And please if we the fathers want change we have to work in one accord; do check this website www. and get your MP to sign that EDM34. And as many fathers as you could reachout to, get them to subscribe to this matter beacause if we stay here complaining till the end of time it will effect no change unless you do change your approach.
    As u can see that you re not being listened to here in this room you have only succeeded in arguing with those who re not in same shoes with u to understand where it pinches.

  48. JamesB says:

    To be positive, I do believe that relationship classes at school are a positive thing and also that the trend of the feminazis to not have children will hopefully mean that our children will not have to put up with these hysterical arguments pitching brother against sister. It is deeply distasteful.

    I have written to my MP many times on this subject. He is ignoring my mails now. He agreed to disagree $%^&&$”*.

    The solution I believe is to vote with your feet and not have children with women who believe in the CSA. That is the future I believe. Women with strong family and or religious ties who abhor family law courts and CSA as I do. I don’t want those institutions for me or my children any more, they do not work and are destroying society. The number of children born to women in this country who were not born in this country is going up and up and I think this is the main reason for it.

  49. JamesB says:

    I have just e-mailed my MP. I doubt he will sign though, they seem to be intent on leading this country to oblivion. Still one must hope they are looking for votes after all, plus I am positive about the future for the reasons I put above. I doubt our grandchildren will have this nonsense. I just hope they are not muslim because of it!

  50. JamesB says:

    Am I completely mad? Sometimes I wonder, but I do not think so. It is nice to know that I am not alone sometimes as the NRP role does seem to be the bad guy. Society needs to do something for us for a change from time to time. I have a lot of respect for Marilyn for doing this for us here and thank her for that.

  51. Rob says:

    If CSA arrears are not statute barred then how come I have received Deduction from earnings order to pay £120 per week for 3 years? My child is 22. I don’t want my employer knowing my business I’m willing to pay an amount I can afford which is not £120 per week am I still able to set up a payment to the CSA monthly or will they automatically take it out of my earnings. The employer they have sent it to I do not work for anymore so wondering if I can set it up before they attach one to my new employer. I am also only on temporary 6 months contract. Thanksful for your advice Marilyn as its a jungle out there! 🙂

  52. Lesley says:

    Need some advice here please. My husband pays for his 2 children who live in South Africa. The eldest is now 18 and the youngest will be 18 next year. The original divorce papers say he has to pay till both children are self supporting (why?) but a new maintenance agreement was drawn up on the 24/6/08 and states only until they are 18 or self supporting, whichever comes first. Can you clear this up for me please?

  53. Sean Smith says:

    Hi need advice as I’ve tried getting answers from csa but got nothing, to make it short, I had a private arrangement with my ex partner to pay her direct through standing order as I gained a new job which was zero hours contract so had no idea what I would be earning, she agreed & I informed the csa which they said was fine, now 2 years later my ex contacted csa to say she wasn’t happy with agreement which is her right, but now the csa have arrested my wages & told me I have 2 years of arrears to pay? I don’t agree with this as a private agreement was in place I would have thought any arrears would be from point of contact? I realise I have to pay maintenance but feel back dating this is morally wrong when I was paying what I could for 2 years, can’t speak to csa as I get no answers it’s a case of that’s the way it is so tough.
    Thanks any advice is appreciated.

Leave a Reply


Newsletter Sign Up

For all the latest news from Stowe Family law
please sign up for instant access today.

Privacy Policy