THERE was a time when the name of the Child Support Agency sparked fear and anger in the hearts of families the length and breadth of Britain almost on a daily basis.

If ever there was an example of good intentions gone wrong, it was the instant chasm which opened between what it was meant to do and what - in too many cases - it ended up doing.

Let's make on thing clear. If absent fathers had shown a greater willingness to accept responsibility for their children, there wouldn't have been a need for the CSA to exist.

But it was never meant to target fathers already contributing to children's welfare, or lose sight of the need to deal sympathetically and humanely with absent parents.

Today, seven years after it became a familiar part of British life, we report a case which illustrates why, amid the huge amount of good the CSA does, it continues to let itself and the nation down.

Tolladine teenager Sian Handley has written to the Prime Minister telling him how badly her family's been let down. Good on her for doing so.

She tells him that the CSA's pursuit of £4,000 arrears is threatening to force her dad, Stephen, out of her life.

She tells him that the family's been satisfied with the way he's looked after them for the past 13 years.

More than that, he's "the most wonderful man in the world with a personality and love every child could wish for".

We hope Mr Blair spares a minute - that's all it will take - to read her letter and agree with what she says.

The CSA was never intended to break up families. And it must not be allowed to do it to the Handleys.