Justice For Families

I have heard that parents who have had their children adopted are expected to pay maintenance.

So the state stealing your child isn't enough, they expect you to pay for the child as well.

I expect the law the SS are using is Child act 1989. Page 17

SCHEDULES

Section 15(1).
SCHEDULE 1 Financial Provision for Children
Orders for financial relief against parents

1 (1) On an application made by a parent or guardian of a child, or by any person in whose favour a residence order is in force with respect to a child, the court may—

(a) in the case of an application to the High Court or a county court, make one or more of the orders mentioned in sub-paragraph (2);

(b) in the case of an application to a magistrates' court, make one or both of the orders mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (c) of that sub-paragraph.

(2) The orders referred to in sub-paragraph (1) are—

(a) an order requiring either or both parents of a child—

(i) to make to the applicant for the benefit of the child; or

(ii) to make to the child himself,

such periodical payments, for such term, as may be specified in the order;

(b) an order requiring either or both parents of a child—

(i) to secure to the applicant for the benefit of the child; or

(ii) to secure to the child himself,

such periodical payments, for such term, as may be so specified;

(c) an order requiring either or both parents of a child—

(i) to pay to the applicant for the benefit of the child; or

(ii) to pay to the child himself,

such lump sum as may be so specified;

(d) an order requiring a settlement to be made for the benefit of the child, and to the satisfaction of the court, of property—

(i) to which either parent is entitled (either in possession or in reversion); and

(ii) which is specified in the order;

(e) an order requiring either or both parents of a child—

(i) to transfer to the applicant, for the benefit of the child; or

(ii) to transfer to the child himself,

such property to which the parent is, or the parents are, entitled (either in possession or in reversion) as may be specified in the order.

(3) The powers conferred by this paragraph may be exercised at any time.

(4) An order under sub-paragraph (2)(a) or (b) may be varied or discharged by a subsequent order made on the application of any person by or to whom payments were required to be made under the previous order.

(5) Where a court makes an order under this paragraph—

(a) it may at any time make a further such order under sub-paragraph (2)(a), (b) or (c) with respect to the child concerned if he has not reached the age of eighteen;

(b) it may not make more than one order under sub-paragraph (2)(d) or (e) against the same person in respect of the same child.

(6) On making, varying or discharging a residence order the court may exercise any of its powers under this Schedule even though no application has been made to it under this Schedule.



To conflict with this possibility. I was lead to believe that only parents with PR are expected to pay money for a child, though I can't get any link of info supporting that....yet.

Thoughts, comments, opinion and experience or insight welcome.

I half expect us to be in this situation soon where we will have to contribute to the financial cost of the child even though the state stole the child and it is being brought up by 2 morons.
This whole process is so unjust.
The parents get no financial support whatsoever and if they did half of them might not end up in the situation where the state steals their children.
As of yet I have not experienced this, however I'm certain that it will become an issue sooner rather than later.

I would be surprised if this referred to adoption though. When a child is adopted the parents lose PR. In private law if a child is adopted the natural father doesn't pay maintenance so why is this different in public law?

No PR = No PR IMO (Pretty simple thinking i know)

Ive never heard of a natural parent having to pay maintenance to adoptees.I reality doesnt happen.

It is in the special guardianship and adoption procedures as laid out by the LA.

Andrew there are many fathers out there with no PR who have to pay maintenance for their children.

fassitangels wrote:Andrew there are many fathers out there with no PR who have to pay maintenance for their children.

You have a point there, that i overlooked.

it would be a cold day in hell before I would pay any money to the idiots
who have adopted our children, as they have drummed it into their heads
that the natural parents are evil abusers, with no medical evidence nor
statements from kids to back them up, just the word of one crackpot
ed psych, from hell.
It is them who should be paying us, the LA for the mental torture they
have subjected innocent families to.
Have no intention of funding the adoptive parents pension scheme.

Lydia wrote:it would be a cold day in hell before I would pay any money to the idiots
who have adopted our children, as they have drummed it into their heads
that the natural parents are evil abusers, with no medical evidence nor
statements from kids to back them up, just the word of one crackpot
ed psych, from hell.
It is them who should be paying us, the LA for the mental torture they
have subjected innocent families to.
Have no intention of funding the adoptive parents pension scheme.

I wouldn't pay either, i'd rather do prison time.

I can relate to this seeing as someone close to me will have to pay maintenance to their child once the child has been stolen by the state.

Prison achieves nothing and when you have paid for your crime you still owe the carers money....Prison does not wipe the slate clean.

I just would not pay period, they would have to lock me up for 18 years that is how strongly i feel about this idiocy.

There are ways of ‘non payment’, where the state can’t touch you.

Take their power away from them

I already refuse to pay. I will not be forced either.

If I go to a super store and don't like the service, I don't use that store again. I extend the same reasoning to the CSA.

The CSA do well wrecking families, the replacement CMEC, who should replace the CSA some time soon are the same as the CSA with added force powers and CSA complaints swept away.

How much of an idiot does a person have to be to see that the CSA is failing..... The CSA is not economically viable, but some muppet carries on trying.

Nothing like learning the same mistake over and over, year in and year out.

I to would rather go to jail than pay the CSA. I would teach every prisoner who is interested about how to self represent them self in court (and be a MK) while I am in jail.

May I ask where you have heard this, as this is news to us as adoptive parents???

I was asked if it was true. I looked at the law that was quoted to me and it appears true.

There is a mother and father who live somewhere North of Nottingham who pay maintenance for their adopted children. I accept that I haven't seen any paperwork for them yet, but from what I heard it is maintenance that they pay.