A teenager whose father has been named and shamed on a national CSA website today said: "I'm proud to call him Dad".

Johnathan Ludbrook, 17, is devastated that his "generous and caring" father, John, is one of 40 men publicly named on the Child Support Agency's national list of "offenders".

The list includes "non-resident" parents who have been prosecuted for failing to provide information to the CSA.

In Mr Ludbrook's case he was ordered to pay fines and costs totalling £295 by Bradford magistrates in January. But Johnathan is appalled by the CSA's decision to include his dad on the internet rogues gallery'.

He lives with Mr Ludbrook, 49, at the family home in Cottingley Cliffe Road, Cottingley, and said that he wants for nothing. The family is also angry that Mr Ludbrook is the only parent in the Bradford district to be singled out for the list.

Mr Ludbrook is disgusted by his inclusion on the new blacklist. He says it should be for absent parents who ignore the fact that they have children and fail to provide for them.

Johnathan said: "My dad has done so much for me. He has always been there to help me.

"He is a very, very generous man who always puts others in front of himself. He will help anybody out.

"I am very proud that he is my dad. He is a generous and caring father and I want his name off this website.".

Mr Ludbrook, who runs Supaskips skip hire and rubbish clearance business with his second wife Dawn, said he had always been there for Johnathan.

His son had stayed with him weekly since he was a baby and now lived with him full time.

He said the CSA took him to Bingley Magistrates' Court in November last year and told him he owed about £700 from the last few weeks Johnathan lived with his former wife earlier in 2006.

He was about to start making the arrears payments when the agency told him the figure had not been finalised. He was asked for details of his financial outgoings but for the wrong year.

Mr Ludbrook said he had paid at least £2,000 more out for Johnathan than was legally required.

He had tried to phone a CSA helpline after he learned his name was on the list but was told the computers were down.

He said he was a loving father to Johnathan and his and Dawn's four younger children.

"The CSA said I was £780 in arrears then they said they weren't sure of the figure. Anyway, I had already overspent by £2,009.

"I hope I have always been a generous father and I feel I have been kicked in the teeth.

"I believe that some names should be on the list - people who just ignore the fact that they have a child.

"But I think it is disgusting that I am included. Johnathan is very upset as well.

"They are wrong to name and shame me. It is them, the CSA that have not sorted out a final figure.

"My son has lived either with his grandmother, my mother Joan, or me since May last year.

"There was never a time when he was not with me for weekends and holidays.

"I still need to sort things out with the CSA but I do not deserve this treatment."

He said the CSA had too many departments and one did not know what the other was doing. The list exploited the divisions between former partners and made settlements more difficult.

A spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions said: "The parents named on the Child Support Agency (CSA) website have been taken to court and found guilty of either failing to provide information, or providing false information to the Agency.

"The Agency needs information, for example income details, in order to calculate the amount of maintenance that the "non-resident parent" should be paying to the "parent with care".

"The non-resident parent is given many opportunities to provide this information and forewarned that court action could result if they continue to fail to do so.

"If circumstances change and the child moves in with the non-resident parent to live with them full-time, then responsibility for paying maintenance swaps over.

"However, any maintenance owed from before the child moved still has to be paid.

"Likewise, if maintenance for that period could not be calculated because of lack of income information, the need for that information remains, even if the child has since moved."