Child Maintenance Service must be less ‘tentative’

fostering and adoption

The Child Maintenance Service (CMS) is too “tentative” in its approach to enforcement and must take a stronger approach to enforcement, MPs have insisted.

The CMS was launched in 2012 as a replacement for the Child Support Agency (CSA). The idea was to encourage parents to deal directly with each other following a separation rather than going through an agency of the government. The transition from the CSA to the CMS has been a gradual process but many of the more difficult or complicated cases have still not been transferred over, according to the Work and Pensions Committee.

Such cases include those involving domestic violence or fraud. In a report published today, the Committee insisted that the government must ensure that these cases are automatically taken up by the CMS instead of leaving them to the individuals involved.

In domestic violence cases, the report supported claims made by two charities last year that the CMS could actually endanger victims as direct contact could leave some vulnerable to further financial or emotional abuse. The Committee warned that parents who have gotten away from violent partners are left “with the choice of re-engaging with their abuser and risking further coercion and control, or declining money owed to them for their children”.

The MPs demanded that cases involving domestic abuse be automatically taken on by the CMS’s collection service to avoid such risks. They also recommended that unlike the majority of disputes which are enforced by the CMS, those involving domestic violence should incur no charges.

Heidi Allen, the Conservative MP for South Cambridgeshire, said “the balance between state and family is one of the hardest to get right”. However, improvements to the CMS would represent “an opportunity to get control of this decades old issue”.

She added:

“The CMS must visibly up its game, to get fair support for parents in the most difficult circumstances, and to send a clear signal that avoiding responsibility for your children is unacceptable.”

This report was published following an inquiry by the Committee into the effectiveness of the CMS. For more information, click here.

Photo by Stephan Hochhaus via Flickr under a Creative Commons licence.

Stowe Family Law Web Team

View more from this author

42 comments

Paul - May 2, 2017 at 1:38pm

100% disagree. Have they not killed enough fathers ? You do know over 3000 people have quoted the CSA (call them what they are) in their suicide notes. They have blundered and screwed up peoples claims. Left men homeless and destitute. Forced grown men to live back with there parents. Its sickening. How does that help society ?
This child support idea is correct in a nuclear family situation. We no longer have a neuclear family situation where man earns enough to pay for a whole family. These days those jobs do not exist. Middle classes do not exist. People are means tested to live on minimum incomes. Forcing them to live on 15% or 20% less than minimum is utterly sickening.
A family who split up have rent/morgauge on two seperate properties to pay. Twice as much out goings. Then the man pays taxation 17.5% the 15%-20% to CSA. So men are living on 60% of their income then paying rent. THATS INHUMAN.
That is worse than slavery.
People who agree with this policy have no idea of its implications.They are ideots.
Lets now figure in the fact that the CSA have a sickeningly bad track record of been compitant enough to take the right money from people. They screw it up in most cases. I have been placed on 3 differnt schemes because they keep fxxking up. These mistakes HAVE KILLED OVER 3000 MEN. I am not making this up. We have had wars which have killed less people than this policy.
And you wish them to be harsher ???
This policy is to deal with a fictional problem. The idea that men abandon hundreds of kids is utter nonsense. It never existed and it still doesnt. Its designed to tax and punish men.

How about tightening up enforcement of contact orders ? – clamping down on women who ignore judges ? Still no appitite to enforce court orders against women ???
Blatant institutional sexisism.

lee - May 2, 2017 at 2:16pm

I totally agree with your comments, as a father thats been fighting the csa for 6 years on one front or another. I am at present out of work an unable to claim benefits, at the moment the csa want to take me to court for the arears they say of over £8K. Having spoken to a solicitor they explained that i shouldve had paper work when the initial application was placed back in 2011, i didnt get any paperwork, also when it moved to the cms my ex made another claim, again i didnt get any paperwork. i also have a problem that ive found that my ex has had someone sign 2 of the kids birth certificates fraudulantly as i know i was working on both the dates they were done and i wasnt informed of them.
My main gripe is when you phone them you get a different person everytime, i was advised on a previous call that i was assigned a case worker, phoned today and got through and asked for the caseworker and was told by the arrogant person from the enforcement team that they dont pass cals around whoever pics up the phone deals with it. Well then where is the privacy and confidentiallity for the client on the phone,also the arrogant person wanted me to explain why i was calling, so i said if you have a computer the notes are ther you best read them.
The csa and csm are just collection agencies and as youve said just punish the fathers, where is the fathers right, well we dont seem to have any, equal rights only go so far i take it? They want to take me to court so ill attend and lay out all the evidence i have infront of the judge and see what happens.They hide behind legislation that states that they can contact hmrc and get wage records to make their calculations, in my case not working for 3 years they are allowed to go back six years and use pic a year that i was earning a wage and make calculations on that..
The government need to have a rethink on how child maintanance is done.

Paul - May 2, 2017 at 3:01pm

I now refuse to speak to them on the phone. I wrote to my MP and made this clear. I have been robbed, threatened lied too. They have made so many mistakes on my claim they had to sweep it under the carpet. They now lovingly call this ‘Doing a Falkirk’. You are under no obligation to share information with a stranger over the phone. You have a legal right to privacy protected in law. I insist on everything in writing by post. I highly recomend you do the same. I stated clearly I do not trust this organisation as data controlers under the data protection act (1984 i think). But still i have to give them information ? I entirely disagree with it it is utterly sickening ?
Nobody can force you to share details on the phone. How do you know its not an african scam?
Protect yourself. Get everything in writing.

Paul - May 2, 2017 at 1:58pm

The CSA are taking money off people for children who have been proven to be not their children by DNA. But because they have established payment they just have to keep paying it. You think we should be harsher on them guys ???
Jobs don’t pay you enough to raise your children thats why we have child benefit. But if you split up with your ex and kids suddenly you owe them 20%. This is a con.
ITS JUST A STEALTH TAX.
Legal robbery. They are taking money by force just because they can.Don’t buy into it !

spinner - May 2, 2017 at 2:15pm

The problem with the domestic violence issue is there are many many false claims of domestic violence already due to women only being allowed to claim legal aid if they successfully claim to be victims of domestic violence. The bar of proof is set so low that even a doctors letter stating that their patient complained of domestic violence is proof and if one more benefit is added such as not having to pay for not being able to make a direct payment it will just encourage more women to make false claims which once made take on a life of their own.
Set the bar for domestic violence to be an actual conviction, with the widening of the definition of domestic violence to include financial control and so on it shouldn’t be so difficult to get a conviction if there has actually really been domestic violence or abuse.
If a women is found to have lied about suffering domestic violence or abuse then they need to be jailed as an example to other women to stop them doing the same.

Paul - May 2, 2017 at 2:45pm

Been their got the DV teeshirt. For NO REASON. I was a man so i was guilty. Who would be a man in the UK at the moment ? – im not exhaggerating whem I say I hate this country. This system is a sick game. My advice is appeal any of these decissions made at magistrates courts. (Not fit for purpose) The crown have to do things proparly. ALWAYS REPRESENT YOURSELF. Your children have been legally kidnapped for the profit of legal professionals. Never allow anyone to profit from stealing your kids. Your now liam Neilson in ‘Taken’ go get them yourself. Thats my advice. Do not let them shut you up. Speak out of turn until you have said what needs to be said. Good luck.

Paul - May 2, 2017 at 3:32pm

Sorry for hogging the post but its worth saying I feel like I have a form of PTSD from dealing with them. Everytime I get a call. Everytime I get a letter. First anger then depression and dispair. My girl friend has to deal with alot. I thank god for her.
Just reading this post has left me seething with anger. Its not healthy. When your going through this you just don’t have the mental bandwidth to deal with life. I feel like its taken over mine. I am well aware nobody cares about people effected by this.

Bernie Mulligan - May 2, 2017 at 4:01pm

I am due to go to tribunal soon as the cMS have failed to apply sections of the 2012 regulations that apply to self employed absent parents, are you interested in reporting on this?

Cameron Paterson - May 2, 2017 at 4:03pm

Possibly. Email us an outline of the issues and we’ll certainly take a look

JamesB - May 2, 2017 at 4:28pm

To chuck someone out then expect them to pay on an on-going basis is crazy feminism. That MPs have become so detached from society is very disappointing. This matter needs to go back to family court and each case dealt with on its merits and pre nups legalised.

If you push rights without responsibilities like the MPS in the article do, it will lead to less marriage, less fathers, disenfranchisement of men, more single parents, and the decline of our society. Given all that politicians should pull their heads out of their backsides and scrap the 1991 and subsequent CSA / CMEC / CMOptions / CMS Acts and the matter go back to court. Otherwise you have rule by MumsNet, GingerBread, Women’s Aid and Resolution, Which is a recipe not for nice yummy cookies, but for disaster and a society of Sharia and people living apart in flats, we are practically there already as the Anglo Saxons in this country are busy arguing this nonsense we are being out bred and immigration to extinction. Not sure how this goes away but it needs to. I suggest keep cutting the department’s budget until it becomes completely ineffective therefore forcing people to marry and go to court or bring up family themselves. Reading between the lines seems to be the conclusion the governments have rightly come to themselves also.

JamesB - May 2, 2017 at 4:39pm

On the last sentence I mean, it seems the government are rightly trying to avoid getting involved and to make this department (csa/ cmec/cmoptions/cms) as small and short term as possible as they have finally realised that it is a bad idea and the matter belongs in family court, otherwise is 1984/Brave New World/ Nightmare on Elm Street etc all combined and bad and something to be avoided and closed down. How to do so without upsetting the feminists though? I suggest through CMOptions advising that CMS is inefficient and to do a deal themselves, which is what is happening. Plus reduce the budget for it and encourage people to resolve things through marriage with prenups.

Mum and Dad need to parent the children rather than Mum and State. Man is not just a number but a right to be a parent.

I myself and caught in it, perhaps too late for me, but for our children this evil organisation must be closed as they need to need each other and not call the state to intervene. If they really must have intervention then it should be their families firsts or Judges as a last resort with pre nups.

Government wading into family finances in the form of the CSA/CMEC/CMOptions/CMS, has been a complete disaster for all concerned. Marily was right to resign from them, it does not help but makes matters worse and is based on the mistaken assumption that men are bad. That there has been so little consultation with the payers of this feminist tax is bad and this department needs to be scrapped rather than renamed.

JamesB - May 2, 2017 at 4:48pm

I urge people to write to their MPs on the matter. Worth 5 mins. Can’t think of anything else. Perhaps go to the window and shout I’m as mad as hell and Im not going to take it anymore. Thing is it is reversible, it is not an improvement. I don’t want Trump or Fascist politicians because of this nonsense and would rather be inside the circle of trust and society than outside of it. I feel the CSA / CMEC / CMS / CMOptions puts me outside of it. Like the Elboe song says hole in society. Need to stop writing on here and have fell for it again. Seems to be bad law and a feminist tax drawn up by unrepresentative politicians while the payers are not represented.

If MPs want to earn their salary on this matter, I suggest they look at taking the percentage down by 1% every five years upon review as the legislation actually says.

If they were to actually read it rather than twitter with MumsNet, or messing with sanitary VAT, the legislation says core formula to be reviewed and revised by government every five years, it is too high and needs to keep coming down (to 0 I suggest over 20 years). That it is not even looked at despite it saying in the act that it should be shows how bad our politicians are.

JamesB - May 2, 2017 at 4:51pm

I need to do other things. This subject gets me going. I have been paying for over thirteen years with no end in site. Longer sentence then would have served if had killed my ex. Perhaps advice to people is not to bite when people bait with articles like this one.

Cameron Paterson - May 2, 2017 at 5:12pm

It’s just a news report James

JamesB - May 4, 2017 at 12:29am

Its so wrong Cameron. We all shoot the messenger from time to time, like the beginning of the film Gladiator, simpler times, more natural law, Russell Crowe, Maximus Dickus wouldn’t have had it, father to a murdered son speech for example. He would have been up on that MPs table kicking over the water and not sure what he would have made of that Gingerbread lady.

My name is Maximus Decimus Meridius, commander of the Armies of the North, General of the Felix Legions, loyal servant to the true emperor, Marcus Aurelius. Father to a murdered son, husband to a murdered wife. And I will have my vengeance, in this life or the next

JamesB - May 2, 2017 at 4:51pm

Or the other one a day or two ago or before that or before that.

Andrew - May 2, 2017 at 5:44pm

I wonder if any of these political worthies are
_
(1) People in business who know from experience how hard it is to make people pay their just debts in this country;
_
(20 Solicitors who have had to tell clients that they are probably going to get nothing out of a debtor who has been thoroughly dishonest in dealing with them.
_
I also wonder whether they are aware that debtors sometimes pay their CM (and worse their SM) because they can go to prison for not paying which does not apply to ordinary debt.
_
It all needs rethinking. A universal and reliable register of judgment debts which any commercial debtor paying a substantial bill would have to search first, and pay the creditors direct? Capitalise CM and SM by a formula and put it on the same register? Defer SM behind other debts so that ex-spouses do not compete with outside creditors? Make lump sum orders provable in and dischargable by bankruptcy, again postponed for dividend behind what I would call real creditors?
_
It can all be done if you treat these debts as commercial debts like any other and commit yourself to making commercial debt collectable. And of course you abolish all forms of preference; no selective imprisonment, cancellation of driving licences, confiscation of passports for one debt but not another.
_
not the sort of thing you can get a committee of headline-hunting MPs to back, I suppose!

Yvie - May 2, 2017 at 7:49pm

“A family who split up have rent/morgauge on two seperate properties to pay. Twice as much out goings. Then the man pays taxation 17.5% the 15%-20% to CSA. So men are living on 60% of their income then paying rent. THATS INHUMAN.”

Totally agree with you Paul about dads finding that they have to live on 60% of what is often a meager salary to begin with. One other point worth mentioning particularly in relation to dads earning below the national wage, is that many of these dads don’t get paid if they are unfortunate enough to go of sick. It can take weeks to get back on track after even a very short period of being off sick, perhaps as little as two or three days. Do our MPs imagine that these fathers are on a similar salary to themselves? They need to get in the real world instead of threatening to punish fathers,who perhaps through no fault of their own are unable to pay the expected amount. Most dads want to support their children. but if they are not paid much they cannot give much. Its wrong that government seeks to blame fathers for a system which quite obviously is not working, instead of trying reforming the system into something acceptable to both payers and receivers.

JamesB - May 2, 2017 at 9:10pm

Re this link (worth watching) and committee:

parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/work-and-pensions-committee/news-parliament-2015/child-maintenance-launch-16-171/

1. I am pleased that they listened to me and people like me finally and actually have someone there on behalf of the non resident parents (Michael, FNF)
2. Its a right mess
3. I have lots of respect for Frank Field and am very pleased he is involved
4. I stick to all the points I make above, indeed from watching the car crash of a review the message to parents should be as I say above, avoid the government getting involved and try to deal with yourself or in court.

JamesB - May 2, 2017 at 9:30pm

10:50 onward gets very interesting.

JamesB - May 2, 2017 at 9:32pm

11:10:50(secs). Especially the bit about Mrs Thatcher and the courts.

JamesB - May 2, 2017 at 9:53pm

parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/work-and-pensions-committee/inquiries/parliament-2015/child-maintenance-16-17/publications/

The letters at the bottom are worth a read. Seems writing in to these people you may be able to change things.

JamesB - May 2, 2017 at 9:54pm

I recommend people to write in to them and perhaps join FNF and submit contributions that way. As I fully support Edwina Currie that people shouldn’t complain unless they try and do something about it.

JamesB - May 2, 2017 at 9:57pm

If that doesn’t work (as may be closed), write to Frank Field or your MP or both. Should be more accessible but here it is and at least the FNF person was asked to attend this time. It only took 25 years for the invite. Sigh.

JamesB - May 2, 2017 at 10:01pm

Hopefully in future they might consult widely with parents with care and non resident parents. Just going off what Gingerbread says isn’t really helping. Gingerbread are feminists and biased against society and men, for example they do not allow non resident parents (who are single parents too) to join which is badly wrong and go on about domestic violence (as per above video) where there is not any and this woman in the video (from Gingerbread) talks more than everyone else put together and is supposed to be an expert enquiry with MPs. Sigh, slow process of change, hopefully is changing for the better though.

Andy - May 2, 2017 at 11:14pm

I can only laugh at the MP’s decision on this subject…Enforcing what exactly..The only thing that is happening is making the incompetent and unreliable agency at present to a competent and professional one..This is due to years of errors,incorrect judgements and of course the harrowing tactics the agency has created thus the negativity by,guess what,paying fathers…I say paying more like surviving…

The joke of it all is as previous Domestic Violence is cited as Goldigger mother to cloud and judge againsed the father who has only done what any responsible father would do. Even perhaps acting very adult in all this whilst the childish mother who now acts like a spoiled child is supported by the agency…

I do like the term parenting support..who in the right mind would reduce the father to living like a tramp with reduced finances and yet again the word shared care by the joke agency so where is shared care as you give increased finances to one big lier….

3000 fathers who have criticised the system for its bully tactics to get money out of the father by any means,,with the joke action taken if you don’t..so where is the shared responsibility then..bloody no where…

I could rant on for hours but all I want to know is where is the support for fathers in all this or are they the silent victims..or is the agency saying put up or shut up…

Michael Lewkowicz - May 3, 2017 at 12:23am

It appears that the Select Committee has been highly selective in which evidence it took account of in preparing its report.

Powerful evidence was provided by dozens of individuals, an 800+ respondent survey carried out by Families Need Fathers and authoritative reports by mathematician, Dr Christine Davies. However, this evidence, demonstrating that the current child maintenance formula is unaffordable to many paying parents has been ignored. Similarly, evidence by Families Need Fathers that the formula does not work for shared care arrangements, acknowledged by Gingerbread in their oral evidence to be in need of review, is also disregarded. No doubt many family lawyers wold agree that the child maintenance formula could, but does not, reduce conflict between parents wishing to provide joint care for their children after separation at a sensitive time for families.

It is hard to see how the Committee felt that they could find a solution to non-payment by focusing almost exclusively on the issues affecting receiving parents – an approach that has repeatedly failed. An opportunity has been missed to find real solutions that address key issues of both receiving and paying parents.

JamesB - May 3, 2017 at 11:52pm

Thank you for your efforts and going Michael. I did notice how everyone suddenly appeared to go deaf and not respond at all or anything when you quite rightly brought up (several times) the unenforceability of child arrangement orders.

JamesB - May 3, 2017 at 11:59pm

Please keep up the good work. Very many people, children, partners, families, etc., perhaps even the whole of society are relying upon you.

I do not understand why people don’t start shouting and hitting the table etc in these meetings. All seemed a bit too stiff upper lip and unsaid.

If I was in your position I would have said, kicking the man out and expecting him to pay massively for 20 years is pushing your luck. Perhaps was implicit but perhaps needed to be explicit, then again I am not a lobbyist or tactician on this matter.

If I was in your position I would have said, in addition to your second family point which was valid, that it costs more to run two households rather than one and thus finances get stretched.

JamesB - May 4, 2017 at 12:08am

I would also have said that it (CSA/CMS/CMOptions/CMEC) is disenfranchising millions of men and making them outside of society and very angry towards the establishment. I may have missed it but this seemed to be talked around.

Expecting to pay when another man is raising your children and calling you names is pushing it too.

A lot of this is political correctness which was not challenged, its unnatural law.

Also, you missed a trick when asked what to do. Ok, with the enforceability of contact orders, but seems to me the sensible thing would be to scrap the thing (CMEC/CSA/CMOptions/CMS) and put it back to the family court. Frank Field and me and the country of these people shouting at the Government when its not really the Governments place to play Dad. You were right to ask for enforceable child arrangement orders though as that needs resolving as Paul and many millions of others will testify, plus that we are not complaining does not mean we are ok with the system, politicians are wrong and upsetting people with that and siding with the pwc as you quite rightly say.

JamesB - May 4, 2017 at 12:16am

You half made the point that pushing people to pay for children that they don’t see is unfair and unnatural also. Also with re to the UN. wtf? Did the UN sign an alliance with Gingerbread? I don’t think so, they may have mentioned the right of both parents to be involved, that’s fine and good, I am not sure they said the nrp should be stitched up as per this law.

Also, the unfairness of the 20% charge, I may have missed it but it should have said the 4% vs the 20% illustrates the bias of them (CSA/CMEC/CMOptions/CMS) against the nrp and for the pwc, it all smelled as you said. But like the Sunnis not participating in the Iraqi elections, that was a mistake. I am glad you were there. I wish there were more of you there and a protest outside and someone from behind throwing eggs too.

JamesB - May 4, 2017 at 1:00am

Dear Michael, have you ever paid child maintenance for a child or children that you don’t live with as primary carer?

Please answer. Please tell me that you have or do.

I am sick of people who never had telling us who do to do it smiling.

There’s a saying about not being able to judge someone without walking a mile in their shoes. In this situation I think that rings true especially. I would also say that to Harry of the fsmilies marriage foundation institute as he neglects to call for family law Inc AR reform when he , rightly , promotes marriage and families.

JamesB - May 4, 2017 at 1:01am

If nothing else, please answer this above question Michael. Thank you in advance.

Dan - May 3, 2017 at 10:19am

I can see the Government just published ‘Children: residence and contact court orders and related matters for parents, grandparents and others’.
Can I ask whether this includes Adults with Learning Disabilities/Autism etc. as well?
Can I ask for Mediation regarding my missing son {who they stole} and allows no contact while, we did nothing wrong to him?
Thanks, write soon

Paul - May 3, 2017 at 10:20am

The problem we have is right their in this video clip. It was stated quite clearly that harassment cases are been made fraudulantly. The the chair of the commitee turned around and said “These guys turn up at our surgerys and swear that they never had anything to do with domestic violence. Present themselves as these lovely characters” ~ This is the problem. Men are simply not being beleived or treated with suspicion. Women are beleived at source and mens ‘Presumption of innocence is been ignored’ surely if you had a stream of men who object to domestic violence charges coming to your surgery your would know something is not right. Comon sense would tell you the police are not applying these measures proparly.
The fact that its now proven that women are willing to make false allegations to get legal aid tells us very clearly that allegations by women should be treated with suspicion and entirely scrutinised before been taken seriously. Add to this all the cases of false rape allegations which are well documented it becomes very clear that women are not honest by nature and are not beyond manipulation to get what they want. Evidence is very clear. They will also make allegations to spite people. So this raises very real concerns about the nature of women. (Granted not all of them but enough to cause concern)It also has shown why we can’t have this ‘victim oriented’ policing system that we currently have in place. It quite clearly shows we need a ‘truth oriented’ legal system. That is the only way to get any kind of justice.

lee - May 3, 2017 at 11:55am

Well i just got a court date through for non payment, i know that procedures havent been followed because on each claim my ex has placed i havent had any paperwork for it. Was wondering if stowe family law can help with any advice. i can prove my residence at the time of the applications.

Cameron Paterson - May 3, 2017 at 3:39pm

Lee – I’m not sure where you live but you may find it helpful to attend one of our free 30 minute legal advice clinics. You’ll find details here:

http://www.stowefamilylaw.co.uk/family_legal_advice_clinic/

JamesB - May 3, 2017 at 11:47pm

The video evidence sessions are on here:

parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/work-and-pensions-committee/inquiries/parliament-2015/child-maintenance-16-17/publications/

Paul - May 6, 2017 at 4:21pm

I sent the CSA 3 wage slips. I currently earn £600 a month. I have just received my assessment through the post they are going to take £300 a week. I have had enough this time. I can take no more.

Andrew - May 25, 2017 at 7:48pm

I was nattering to my wife about this today when she remembered some people we knew (personally, not professionally) whom I had forgotten about. We knew them both when they were together and tried to remain on good terms with both, which can be awkward. I will call the father John and the mother Mary. They were divorced when their son (“Jimmy”) was about seven. John was in regular but modestly paid work and paid his CM like a gentleman.
.
When Jimmy was about eleven John met and set up with Susan, who was and is a consultant with an NHS post and a private practice. She was making a lot more money than he was, and Mary resented – but accepted – that she could not get more out of John in consequence.
.
Susan fell pregnant, and while the child was on the way she and John agreed that while she was on maternity leave he would quit his job and become a full-time father. (In all honesty I think he was a more effective parent – second time round – than she was.) So the John-and-Susan household lost his pay, but they gained the CM: because having no income he would pay none.
.
Mary had been angry at the thought that the CM would go down -“If he wanted another family he should at least wait till he has finished paying for Jimmy” – but she went berserk when she heard what was in the wind. She thought he and Susan were cheating the system, punishing Jimmy, etc., etc., but John stood firm and said he was doing his best for his new baby. And Mary had to put up with it. She tried to block Jimmy’s contact with John but gave it up, probably on legal advice that that would not wash in court, and was reluctant to let Jimmy see his little half-sister when she arrived, but gave way there too.
.
I can see why she was fed up, but I don’t blame John at all.

lee - June 6, 2017 at 2:00pm

Well as ive been fighting the CSA and the CMS, who were taking me to court for arrears throuh the csa, i asked them a question where did you send the original paper work to set up the csa claim and also the reclaim under cms, i advised them i couldprove the address i was living at and if theyd had forms returned they were fraudulantly done, they said it wouldnt make a difference if i could as they would assume parentage. well today i get a letter stating that the court action is cancelled and they will be intouch on how to proceed from this point.

All i can say is csa cms 0 – 1 me

Theyve been trying to harras me for years so when i stand my ground they dont like it especially when i can back up what im saying.

Paul - June 6, 2017 at 2:11pm

Amazing result Lee. They are facist scum. Keep fighting.

Leave a comment