As well there should be.

Ok, the next time side idiot says that even liberal progressives like Obama are to the right of Europen conservatives I'm linking this article.

What the hell is wrong with the UK? Looks like at least one part of Parliament has come to its senses, but who thought this was a good idea in the first place?

Could this be a knee jerk response to system abuse? We all know that every ex-spouse is a level headed, non-vindictive person and would never use the system to create hardship, strife and/or pain for their former partner. Nope, that would never happen.

More proof that BHO is liberal even by socialism standards.

"Sounded like snoggin' to me!"

"And you a member of Parliament!"

SuperSeriousMan: but who thought this was a good idea in the first place?

Victimising poor people? That would be the Conservative Party.

This is sexist! What about men trying to collect from their child's deadbeat mother?

farm machine: Could this be a knee jerk response to system abuse? We all know that every ex-spouse is a level headed, non-vindictive person and would never use the system to create hardship, strife and/or pain for their former partner. Nope, that would never happen.

The solution isn't to charge a fee, but to prosecute maliciousness. The citizenry already pay for services in the form of taxes;

I honestly think this was a necessary measure. It makes it harder for the overpaid to further scam the system by using beaurocracies instead of the courts...where the amount paid would likely be reduced. I think the fee should be at least what a private attorney charges for a down payment.

I guess you could say, I see you and raise you.

/next time use the courts

Carousel Beast: farm machine: Could this be a knee jerk response to system abuse? We all know that every ex-spouse is a level headed, non-vindictive person and would never use the system to create hardship, strife and/or pain for their former partner. Nope, that would never happen.

The solution isn't to charge a fee, but to prosecute maliciousness. The citizenry already pay for services in the form of taxes;

Yeah as if that would ever happen. I think a fee is a good idea. Women are all too happy to use government as weapon to make their ex's lives miserable. Maybe if there is a fee they will only use it when they need it.

farm machine: Could this be a knee jerk response to system abuse? We all know that every ex-spouse is a level headed, non-vindictive person and would never use the system to create hardship, strife and/or pain for their former partner. Nope, that would never happen.

A guy here lost his old job about a year ago, and started working in April or May at half his previous pay. His vengeful ex went to court for child support with his tax return and pay stubs for last year, and never sent the summonses, so he ended up with a default judgment. The court sent a notice a couple of weeks ago saying they were going to start garnishing his pay, in an amount that equals about 90% of his current take-home. He was stressed out as all hell.

Looks like his lawyer is getting another payday, once all the motions to vacate and produce proof of service and so on go through.

Child support is warranted in a lot of cases, perhaps even the majority, but then there's the huge number of cases where the wife decides to run off with some other man, divorce her previous husband on mostly fictitious grounds, and collect alimony for life. Alimony should stop as soon as it can be proven a woman is shacking up with another man.