What do you think about this 'name and shame' idea, by the c.s.a to shame absent parents into paying up?

Answers:
Firstly, child support and access are 2 different issues.
If an absent parent is not deemed as fit to have access either supervised or unsupervised to their children, then that does NOT preclude them for having to pay to support them.

As for naming and shaming, most absent parents couldn't and wouldn't give a monkey's cuss about being named, they already have no morals, as they should be paying freely towards the upkeep of their offspring, as they have a moral and legal responsibility to do so.

The CSA have had powers to remove driving licences, and passports, and even to imprison absent parents, powers they have rarely used and when they have been into the courts, some half assed judge has allowed the absent parent the upper hand ...demoralising for both CSA and more importantly for the PWC.

Probably the most effective way to secure the money for PWC's and the children would be to sell arrears debts to private agencies(which they have had the power to do for about 6 months now except in clerical cases) - the agency pays the PWC the arrears, and then send in the heavy boys to get the money from the absent parent. NRP's are less likely to stick up 2 fingers at a 20 stones bruiser, than at a letter from the CSA threatening them with a tickle from a feather!!

---

its daft .it will embarrass the kids

---

to be honest until the courts show some kind of equality between the parents and can enforce the father's visiting rights then they should not have to pay

---

The csa are clutching at straws becuase they know time is running out for them, name%26shame is just a delay tactic it aint gonna work.

---

I don't think it will help either party and it could cause problems for the children when friends learn about their family life.

---

It seems a bit stupid and pointless to me. If an absent parent is the type of person that's going to abandon their children they are unlikely to be affected by having their name put on a web site. If they aren't paying because they can't, then they still won't be able to regardless of where their name is posted.

---

If they had any shame in the first place, they'd support their children - that goes for absent mothers and fathers,

Custody, contact and residency has nothing to do with the basic, day to day needs of the children, wherever they live and whether they see one or both parents doesn't alter the fact they need, housing feeding and clothing.

---

I watched a programme on TV last night about this.
One man - who was divorced - had his two kids living with him in the same house and yet he still had to pay the c.s.a.
Crazy or what!?

---

im surprised it is not breaching there human rights. also i remember the horror stories about the csa when it first started; they would take the lions share of peoples wages thus shoving them in to poverty and wrecking lives. the csa should be scrapped.