Owain Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Absent parents who do not pay child support could have their passports and driving licences seized without having to be taken to court. The Department for Work and Pensions said the proposals contained in the Welfare Reform Bill would be a "last resort" if other sanctions failed. Latest estimates suggest absent parents owe nearly £4bn in unpaid maintenance. But opponents say the government's plans could lead to breaches of parents' civil rights. 'Tough times' The old Child Support Agency could confiscate the driving licences of parents who refused to pay for their children, but it had to apply for a court order to do so. Last year, Parliament passed an act giving its replacement, the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission (CMEC), the same power in relation to passports. The new legislation would allow the CMEC to bypass the courts and confiscate absent parents' passports and driving licences until the money is paid in full. The government argues that this is "faster, simpler and easier for the taxpayer". Work and Pensions Secretary James Purnell said: "We are supporting parents in these tough times, but for those who choose not to support their own kids, we will not stand by and do nothing. "If a parent refuses to pay up then we will stop them travelling abroad or even using their car. "We want fair rules for everybody and that means giving people the support they need, but in return expecting them to live up to their responsibilities." Janet Allbeson, from the one-parent family advisory group Gingerbread, told the BBC she supported the idea as a last resort. "Over half of all children in single-parent households are poor. And we know, because Parliament has told us, that if all non-resident parents who are required to pay money each week by the Child Support Agency did so it would lift an extra 100,000 children out of poverty." 'Talking tough' The government says the new plan will be tested in certain areas of the country. Similar schemes in the US and Australia have been successful in increasing payments. Other powers open to the CMEC include taking money from a bank account without going through the courts; applying for a curfew, or recovering money from a dead person's estate. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7852640.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samuibeachcomber Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 cant imagine anyone here admitting to it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuestHouse Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 I think on the whole it's a good move though it could do with a slight 'tweak' to make it a perfect solution. Add two edges to the sword to allow the same penalties for parents who deny their children access to their other parent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 about time. I agree with GH to a degree but there are often other circumstances that result in one parent being denied access rights to the child that IMO only a court should determine & that process is what needs tweaking. Absentee parents shouldn't be allowed to shirk the basic duty to support their children, regardless of whether they currently have access to them. Kids aren't to be purchased like cinema tickets & hearing "I wont pay cause I'm not allowed to see them" bandied around is imo a pathetic excuse, those kids still need clothes, shoes, food on table regardless who who sees them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuestHouse Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Nobody is saying we want to get into a position where child maintenance is subject to access - Not at all. Rather, when dealing with parents rights and duties they should be dealt with equally. This is yet another law aimed at getting absent parents to (quite rigthtly) pay for the children - Getting this payment thing right consumes a great deal of Government law making. Yet despite years of protest and absolutely irrefutable evidence of just how wide spread 'denial of access' is, there have been zero legal iniatives to deal with the problem. Late last year a dear friend of mine took his own life, he'd been living in absolute dispair over his former wife's denial of access to his child, thinking about that, and thinking about this eagerness to deal with only one side of the Parental rights and responsibilities issue is enough to make my heart pump p1ss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Good move. I wonder how many kids in Thailand will then be left without a parent to support them after the UK revokes the passports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soutpeel Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 I am with GH on this one.... Also read what the article says..."If a parent refuses to pay up then we will stop them travelling abroad or even using their car"......."The government says the new plan will be tested in certain areas of the country" This implys this will be enforcable in the UK only...ie you have to be in UK for them to do this... There is nothing said about revoking anybodies passport...they are talking about confiscating a passport...to confiscate something you have to have access to said document... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC1066 Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 I must be unwell today as I also find myself agreeing with GH on this one All parents should stand up to their responsibilities for their kids. My only concern is that the CSA and in all probability it replacement the CMEC is a joke. My cousin didn't have access to his kids but still paid. He made the mistake of paying for years in cash. His ex' took him to court saying he hadn't paid. The CSA instructed him to pay more in maintenance than he actually earned. Fortunately the judge told them they were being rediculous in their demands - but he still has to pay a fortune. Another friend (female) has never had a penny off the father of their kids, who has no interest in them whatsoever and the CSA weren't interested, saying they cannot trace him. In the end she has just given up, with the view that the kids are better off without him. Overall I think it is a good sentiment, but practically will be hard to enforce. I do wonder if it is more of a PR effort designed to show the govt as being tough on absentee parents, rather than a proposal with any real teeth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2oDunc Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 It will never happen. All it is is Brown the Clown telling people how after doing absolutely nothing for the past 11 years Labour is now going to deal with this, he is going to now get tough! YEAH RIGHT. Its just spin and sound bite politics. It will be in the papers and on TV for a week or so then quietly forgotten. Just like reforming the Human rights act and getting tough on immigration, education, knife crime etc etc etc. TOO little TOO late!!!!! This Clown has near destroyed the country and people are doing nothing !!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owain Posted January 27, 2009 Author Share Posted January 27, 2009 (edited) There is nothing said about revoking anybodies passport...they are talking about confiscating a passport...to confiscate something you have to have access to said document... Surely that is easily done by just informing countries that that passport is no longer valid and is being called in. Edited January 27, 2009 by Owain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
endure Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Also read what the article says..."If a parent refuses to pay up then we will stop them travelling abroad or even using their car"......."The government says the new plan will be tested in certain areas of the country" That's the scariest thing I've read in a while. What next? Internal passports? The USSR may have disappeared but its proponents are alive and well and living in Whitehall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patklang Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Great idea,why should the government carry the burden of helping the one parent family,when the hubby should pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geekfreaklover Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Great idea,why should the government carry the burden of helping the one parent family,when the hubby should pay. Why do you say Hubby? Sometimes the wife does a runner. Not allways the governement paying. Usually the parent who is looking after the child pays. I am a single parent. My ex has a lot more money than me owing to the divorce settlement, but I take care the kids. I've no time for absentnee parents (mother or father) . If this propsal can work then it will be a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanmiguel Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 (edited) In reality a lot of men dont pay because they get so fcuked over by the system, and in many cases are financially ruined by a divorce. My brother who's divorce is getting near to completion earns GBP70k a year ..... He has given his ex the house and will pay the remaining GBP100k on the mortgage. He is going to have to take her GBP30k credit card debt on, aswell as pay 15k for her solicitor in the divorce proceedings. Then his own solicitor and court fees will be about 30K He is going to have to pay her GBP1500K a month to support her and the 2 kids. And his Ex is also applying for half of his pension, he is now 36 years of age. Now GBP70K is a good wage but after taxes and whats listed above, he's nothing to live on in an area where it 500GBP a month for a bedsit? This government and common sense are polar opposites. Edited January 27, 2009 by sanmiguel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinthailand Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Good move. I wonder how many kids in Thailand will then be left without a parent to support them after the UK revokes the passports. you wouldnt have expected gordon brown to have thought this through that carefully would you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owain Posted January 27, 2009 Author Share Posted January 27, 2009 (edited) Good move. I wonder how many kids in Thailand will then be left without a parent to support them after the UK revokes the passports. That is the business of the Thai government to sort out. If you have kids in the UK then you should be paying for their upbringing and if you have kids in Thailand then you should also pay for them as well. Fact is if you cannot afford it then stop having kids, use a condom or are you under the impression that people should be able to have as many kids as they want and the taxpayer should pick up the bill? Edited January 27, 2009 by Owain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beechguy Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 (edited) about time. I agree with GH to a degree but there are often other circumstances that result in one parent being denied access rights to the child that IMO only a court should determine & that process is what needs tweaking. Absentee parents shouldn't be allowed to shirk the basic duty to support their children, regardless of whether they currently have access to them. Kids aren't to be purchased like cinema tickets & hearing "I wont pay cause I'm not allowed to see them" bandied around is imo a pathetic excuse, those kids still need clothes, shoes, food on table regardless who who sees them. "About time" For what, another abuse of the legal system? There is apparently already a system in place to go through the court system. Why put it in the hands of some beauracrat. There are no doubt, too many "dead beat dads", but there are probably just as many mothers that lie and manipulate the system. The money that is given is often misspent because of little or no oversight. By the way, I have never been late on a payment in 12 years, why aren't people like you equally outraged by the lack of rights for us fathers? The process needs tweaking, my ass. It needs a complete overhaul! Edited January 27, 2009 by beechguy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gravelrash Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 about time. I agree with GH to a degree but there are often other circumstances that result in one parent being denied access rights to the child that IMO only a court should determine & that process is what needs tweaking. Absentee parents shouldn't be allowed to shirk the basic duty to support their children, regardless of whether they currently have access to them. Kids aren't to be purchased like cinema tickets & hearing "I wont pay cause I'm not allowed to see them" bandied around is imo a pathetic excuse, those kids still need clothes, shoes, food on table regardless who who sees them. So Boo, what you are saying is that my ex-wife who contributes nothing towards our kids upbringing (I have legal custody), should have her passport seized if she doesn't fork over some money? Fat chance that will ever happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbk Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 about time. I agree with GH to a degree but there are often other circumstances that result in one parent being denied access rights to the child that IMO only a court should determine & that process is what needs tweaking. Absentee parents shouldn't be allowed to shirk the basic duty to support their children, regardless of whether they currently have access to them. Kids aren't to be purchased like cinema tickets & hearing "I wont pay cause I'm not allowed to see them" bandied around is imo a pathetic excuse, those kids still need clothes, shoes, food on table regardless who who sees them. So Boo, what you are saying is that my ex-wife who contributes nothing towards our kids upbringing (I have legal custody), should have her passport seized if she doesn't fork over some money? Fat chance that will ever happen. Actually, yes, the custodial parent should receive compensation from the other parent. Regardless of whether it is the father or the mother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 beechguy Today, 2009-01-27 13:19:23 {snip} "People like you"!! lol get off your soap box. If you can actually read, I never mentioned gender & never said that I didn't support the parent who have trouble getting access only that there are sometimes reasons why some parents shouldn't have free acess. That is why the courts need to be involved in those cases, for the best interest of the child (not the parent) The fact is when the relationship ends the kids still need food & clothes, there is no prize for the absentee parent doing what they should be doing & why should there be? That the governement need to force some parents into doing what they shoudl be doign already is a sad state of affairs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 So Boo, what you are saying is that my ex-wife who contributes nothing towards our kids upbringing (I have legal custody), should have her passport seized if she doesn't fork over some money? Fat chance that will ever happen. God can anyone read today!!! I think it have been clear that I think it is a good idea & clearly didn't specify gender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brigante7 Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Great idea,why should the government carry the burden of helping the one parent family,when the hubby should pay. Or wife, or is it just men that abandon/are denied access to there kids? Just like it's only men who hit their wifes/girlfriends and not the other way around also. A little known fact, a goverment survey 2 years ago revealed that almost as many men suffer domestic abuse as woman but 90% of men are too ashamed to report it and also there is almost no help for men in the UK who suffer domestic abuse, unlike woman who have as much help as they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 The issue is not domestic violence it is deadbeat parents getting restrictions placed on them until they support their kids. How this is a bad thing is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owain Posted January 27, 2009 Author Share Posted January 27, 2009 Or wife, or is it just men that abandon/are denied access to there kids? The vast majority who abandon their kids are men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beechguy Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 beechguy Today, 2009-01-27 13:19:23 {snip} "People like you"!! lol get off your soap box. If you can actually read, I never mentioned gender & never said that I didn't support the parent who have trouble getting access only that there are sometimes reasons why some parents shouldn't have free acess. That is why the courts need to be involved in those cases, for the best interest of the child (not the parent) The fact is when the relationship ends the kids still need food & clothes, there is no prize for the absentee parent doing what they should be doing & why should there be? That the governement need to force some parents into doing what they shoudl be doign already is a sad state of affairs. I'm not on a soap box, perhaps you are. And, I can read just fine. You are saying that it's fine to take this action (siezing of passport)outside of the control of the court. It just opens the door for more problems for a legitimate parent in the case of a dispute. Yes, you didn't mention gender, but the fact is, it is much more difficult for a man to get custody of his children. Agreed there shouldn't be a prize, I'm not asking for one! We just shouldn't get screwed over anymore than we already are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadyHeather Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 (edited) It seems to me that the only reason Boo is getting slammed here, and her words being taken not only out of context but being selectively read, is because she is a woman who thinks that parents should be responsible for their children. I don't recall reading anywhere she said, "men" or "women" so I guess it can only be some people who have some sort of agenda or some sort of grudge against women. The saddest thing in all this, including those people who seem to have such issues, is that it is ultimately the children who pay the price for the selfish actions of both parents. Too often divorce is about scoring points and it is pathetic when the parents use their kids to score those points. Yes, more often than not, the parent who gets custody is the mother, but then I wonder how many men would really want to take on full time custody of their children and all that entails? It would certainly curtail those trips to Thailand. Edited January 27, 2009 by LadyHeather Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PattayaParent Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 I am with GH on this one....Also read what the article says..."If a parent refuses to pay up then we will stop them travelling abroad or even using their car"......."The government says the new plan will be tested in certain areas of the country" This implys this will be enforcable in the UK only...ie you have to be in UK for them to do this... There is nothing said about revoking anybodies passport...they are talking about confiscating a passport...to confiscate something you have to have access to said document... You mean like when applying for a new one? Say at the British Embassy in Bangkok? Would they not have access to your passport then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazmlb Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 This Thread is not really Thailand related - closed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts