Sophie Heawood takes out an onion for another unsympathetic cause:
Just when you thought our trigger-happy leaders might finally have run out of easy targets – disabled people who can’t run from the Atos testers, foster parents to charge with a bedroom tax – it seems they have found another one.
Single mums who need help making an absent father pay for his children – it’s your turn to feel like a failure. Again.
Yup! Because you are. You chose an unsuitable and unreliable man to father your offspring. You lose at life. That’s not grounds for expecting an expensive government department to help you sort out your affairs.
Under new rules set to come in “this summer” (a date description as vague as the new financial arrangements are to be), the Child Support Agency (CSA) will be dissolved and a new body called the Child Maintenance Service will appear. Couples in need of help will be “encouraged” to come to a private agreement. If they can’t, they will be charged a £20 fee to open a new child maintenance case.
Fair enough. Mediation is expensive, so why should the taxpayer have to stump up the cost for childults who can no longer get on despite having procreated?
Certainly, if you think the mark of civilisation is people being able to grow up and just get along, the CSA won’t be something you hold dear.
I do and it won’t.
…I wonder if our law courts will no longer be available to those wealthy couples who spend months arguing before judges about whether the one with £200m should give their ex more than the £30m they’ve offered. Are these feuding exes going to be told to get out of our courts and stop wasting our time or risk a fine? Of course not. They’re rich.
No, you miss the point. It’s not ‘because they’re rich’.
It’s because they aren’t asking taxpayers to stump up for it, unlike Chantelle & her sprog by the chap she met in the local bar or her cousin after that hen night or maybe that plumber that came round one day.