Child support - is naming and shaming the answer?

Name and shame parents that do not pay child support. Has the government run out of ideas?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/06/ncsa106.xml

I think castration/neutering depending on gender might be much cheaper and more satisfying.

koshkha wrote:

I think castration/neutering depending on gender might be much cheaper and more satisfying.

I think your joking

I hope your joking

I will have to leave you wondering!

I don't really see how this would do any good?! Yeah they would look really bad, but it doesn't get the child/ mother any money!!

And who would they look bad to? Who would bother even logging on to have a look?

Yeah, seems a bit strange. Surely just forcing the parent to pay their child support would be a far more active and satisfying course of action.

fizzywizzy wrote:

And who would they look bad to? Who would bother even logging on to have a look?

Thats the top and bottom of it.

They would only look bad to the people who logged on to look, but like you said, who would?!?

a ridiculous waste of effort.

If women are more emancipated and career driven now will they be named and shamed for not paying half...I always felt the CSA was anti men anyway. If 9 out of ten women automatically get awarded custody of the kids its inviteable that more men will have not paid up than women.

Happy for them to name and shame non payers provided they also name and shame those individuals who break contact orders and deny absent parents the right to see their children, they should then also name and shame the chicken *Bad Word* judges who fail to enforce orders once they are broken and not use the full extent of the law available to them.

I read today that they are also thinking of charging mothers a £200 fine if they do not put a father down on the birth cert', just so that it is easier to get child support of fathers in the future.

The child support dodgers should in reality feel a massive sense of personal shame for failing to provide for their offspring. This shame alone should be enough to give them a kick up the arse and make them pay up. If they feel no shame for abandoning parental responsability then what difference will it make to name them? Naming them may shame the kids, it may shame the ex-partner, it may shame many many more family members. Just who are they supposed to be naming and shaming here?

sugarnspice wrote:

The child support dodgers should in reality feel a massive sense of personal shame for failing to provide for their offspring. This shame alone should be enough to give them a kick up the arse and make them pay up. If they feel no shame for abandoning parental responsability then what difference will it make to name them? Naming them may shame the kids, it may shame the ex-partner, it may shame many many more family members. Just who are they supposed to be naming and shaming here?

Precisely, naming them does nothing. Ensuring they actually pay is the way forward and not a bloody pittance because they have exaggerated there bills either (talking from experience).

Naming and shaming was only one of the options though, more effective things like taking the passport or driving licennse would be more effective.

I like the idea that both parties should be on the birth certificate as it helps establish parental rights, it is rediculous that at present the mther can choose not to have the fathers name on the certificate, often for purely petty reasons or self interest rather than being in the best interest of the child.

I cant understand why (unless in situations like rape etc) mothers would not want a fathers name down! In my opinion that would look worse on the mother and isn't very nice for the child when they are older.

They talk about it could cause embarressment to the mother, I guess if she does not know who it is or the child was as a result of an affair then it may cause some shame but then if you know this will happen perhaps people would be a bit more responsible.