Accepted reasons for backdating job seekers allowance
A spokesman said: “It is extremely disappointing that parents who have flouted their legal responsibility to financially support their children have invoked the Human Rights Act to seek to continue to do so.” Perhaps – but if this judgement is correct, hasn’t the CSA flouted its legal responsibilities too?The spokesman added: “Regrettably, we need every enforcement measure at our disposal to ensure the minority of irresponsible parents pay for their children. It is important to stress that this judgement does not question the legality of bringing parents who repeatedly refuse to pay for their children to the attention of magistrates, who can then decide whether to send them to prison.Stephen Lawson, a child support specialist who helped to bring the test case, welcomed the ruling: “I hope this ruling will now end the unjust practice of non-resident parents, usually fathers, being jailed or threatened with jail without the opportunity to defend themselves properly.
Here’s a link to a guardian article, a left wing feminist publication not known for its fair treatment of men, bit even they recognise it is a gender issue: What the Guardian doesn’t appear to recognise is that divorce and separation, losing regular contact with children, losing the majority of your assets and being forced by the courts to start all over again at the age of 40 or 50 is one of the main causes of suicide in men.The DWP should extract their ill-witted heads from their pompous backsides and wake up to the gross imbalance off justice that they ‘support’ and oversee on a daily basis.My ex partner lied to his GP that hes suicidal so that he can sign on and get put on incapacity benefit, and not pay maintenance. I have not had one penny in 14 yrs, and he refuses to see his only child because she is a girl and he wanted a boy.In a robust judgement sure to cause consternation, the Court of Appeal has condemned the Child Support Agency (CSA) for “obnoxious” and “unreasonable” legal failings in threatening fathers with jail without giving them the right to defend themselves.Sitting with the Lords Justice Patten and Richards, Lord Justice Ward said: “The procedures adopted do not comply with the rights to a fair trial and were flawed.” This was a test case, brought by a group of solicitors and barristers to establish whether the standard working practices of the CSA breached the rights of fathers under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.