Changes to child maintenance system: looking for Mumsnetters' responses to a government consultation

[RowanMumsnet]

The government is considering some fairly major changes to the child maintenance regime (where money for child maintenance is exchanged between parents who have separated), and is asking for the public to give its views on the proposals.

If you're a separated parent who currently uses statutory agencies (such as the CSA/Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission) to arrange financial matters with your ex-partner, these changes could have a significant impact on you - so now's your chance to have your say.

Proposed changes include:

1. A strong emphasis on getting separated parents to make independent arrangements (or 'family-based arrangements') without using statutory agencies. Parents will be strongly encouraged to make their own arranegements, with the help of non-governmental organisations such as Relate, mediation services and so on.
2. For cases in which parents can't come to an independent agreement, there will be a new statutory agency (the Child Maintenance Service) to replace the CSA.
3. Fees will be charged to parents who use the Collection Service aspect of the Child Maintenance Service (ie, in cases where the non-resident parent fails to pay voluntarily and promptly). The non-resident parent will be charged an extra 20% on top of the sum of child maintenance s/he is paying; the parent with care will be charged an extra 7%. The government says: 'We are actively seeking views on the detail of how charging and case closure should operate in practice, and strongly encourage interested parties to submit their views on this. However, we are not consulting on the principle of charging itself as this has already been consulted on extensively.'
4. Fees will not be payable by victims of domestic violence, or by parents who are under 18.
5. Cases that are currently handled by the CSA will gradually be transferred to the new regime.

Further details on these and other changes are available in the consultation document, and further details on how to respond to the consultation are given on this page.

The consultation closes on October 26 2012.

Do please let the government know what you think, either by responding directly to the consultation or by posting on this thread.

Thanks,
MNHQ

Can i please ask that this is also posted in 'Step-parenting'? Thank you!

Thanks matana - I'll start a thread directing people to this one!

Well joy of joys I am off to court this very afternoon to attempt to sort out some maintenance from my notsodelightful ex. I shall read through this later and add my comments. I cannot guarantee how polite they will be though....

Whilst I agree it's a good idea to try and get parents to agree amicably, It's not always possible.

I also think if PWC are charged, it just puts them off from trying to get their unreliable and undependable ex's to pay for their children.

Those of us with self employed ex's are just grateful to get anything at all, and to be charged for the "priviledge" is probably going to put more PWC off than ever from trying to get their ex's to step up to the mark.

So essentially a parent looking after their children will have to pay out £20 to get an unreasonable NRP to be told they need to pay. Then on top of that they will have an extra 7% taken off them if the NRP refuses to pay voluntarily.

How can that possibly be fair to either the resident parent or to their child(ren)?

Why is there not more emphasis on making the NRPs who refuse to pay, responsible for their own actions?

Well that is just great. I have ex who will only give me what CSA states and will not try mediation, will not have anything to do with DS and wants no contact at all with me. He is in the Army and moves every 2 years so I guess once this comes into force I'll be saying goodbye to my money then. Personally I think the person who is being difficult paying maintenance should pay the whole lot and not the person desperately trying to get some money for their child.

At this rate I may as well go on the dole and have my housing costs extra paid for by the tax payers as I am already working extra shifts to keep a roof over my head. I think that might come to more than the 7% they are asking for!!

Well since having been separated from NRP for nearly 10 years and after having logged a claim 8 years ago I have only just started receiving payments via a deduction of earnings order.
I am supposed to get £16 per week but so far since June 2012 have had a payment of £26, a payment of £33 and there is a pending payment of £24.

I suffered from DV at his hands for the whole 5 years of the relationship, he left without leaving a forwarding address and I still do not know where he is living or where he is working therefore cannot agree anything amicably.
So if I was paying a fee I would expect to get the correct amounts of money from the NRP

1. Would I have to prove that I suffered from DV in order to not have to pay the new fees ? There would have been police incident numbers at the time and a couple of hospital visits but how long are the records kept for ?
2. If I am not receiving the full payments then if I have already paid the 7% fee do I get a refund as I haven't received the correct amount ?
3. Or as I would be paying for a service that I am not receiving do they then refund the whole fee ?

My ex is currently witholding maintenance in order to 'punish' me as his 13 year old doesn't want to see him as our child is too afraid of his father to see him. I doubt the ex will be happy to pay 20% on top of whatever is calculated, and I can imagine a lot of absent parents quitting their jobs in order to avoid paying this.

I agree entirely with Complexity's post.

In the vast majority of cases, PWC will have already tried to make financial arrangements and the CSA is a last resort - precisely because in all but the most simple cases they are incapable of securing long term financial support for children and there are a variety of loop holes NRPs will make use of to avoid paying. Charging the RP will mean that most won't bother when they know the chances of success are so small - this will not lead to them getting maintenance from a private arrangement and will instead leave their children without any financial support from the NRP. (I for one probably won't bother, my XP can't stick a job longer than a few months and isn't entitled to benefits because his wife works.) If the Government wants to charge for the CSA then first they need to vastly improve its effectiveness. No one is going to pay for a sub-standard service that doesn't yield results.

Additionally, how does the Government intend to determine which cases "involve domestic violence"? Who will the burden of proof be placed upon (will the victim have to prove it did happen, or will the abuser have to prove it didn't?), and what level of evidence will be required? What level of DV is "acceptable" before they decide no payment is required? What about emotional or financial abuse? Will this mean that only the victim receives the service for free, or will perpetrators of domestic violence also receive that benefit? Saying victims of DV won't be charged is a soundbite which is pretty much unworkable in practice.

Can I suggest a thread in Lone Parents as well Rowan?

Why is there not more emphasis on making the NRPs who refuse to pay, responsible for their own actions?

This.

Hugely unfair to make the PWC pay more because the NRP is attempting to evade paying.

It looks good for me. How soon can I get registered with the new system? Anything that links child maintenance calculations with income tax returns can only be a good thing

My issue with this is a practical one based on my own experience.

My ex and i had a lot of debt when we split, and ex entered into a repayment plan. Despite sharing care 50:50, we were advised that if I approached the CSA, his debt repayment calculation would be made after his CSA payment had been deducted. This protected that money for meeting DD's needs - if we'd had a private arrangement, DD would have gone without, as ex wouldn't have had the money to pay, it would have been clawed back in debt repayment.

I would be interested to know how the new system will account for these situations?

Hi all

Thanks for your responses so far.

We will reflect the strength of feeling on charging back to the DWP, but please note that the charging issue is specifically excluded from the consultation - they're open to suggestions on how charging could work, but not on whether it will be introduced. (I'm just pointing this out for clarity - as I say, we're happy to reflect the strength of feeling on this one.)

Re. domestic violence: the info on this is in Annex B, p34 of the consultation document. They say:

'We will not charge an application fee where the applicant declares that they
have previously reported an incident of domestic violence to one of the following individuals or agencies:

? a court;
? the police;
? a medical professional;
? social services;
? a multi-agency risk assessment conference (MARAC);
? a specialist domestic violence organisation or service including a refuge;
? an employer; or
? educational services.

For the purposes of the exemption, we have aligned the definition of domestic
violence with the Home Office definition: 'Any incident of threatening behaviour, violence, or abuse (psychological, physical, sexual, financial, or emotional) between adults who are or have been intimate partners or family members, regardless of gender or sexuality.'

And the specific consultation question they'd like responses to on this is:

'Is our ?self declared? approach, guarantee of no contact with ex-partners and exemption from the upfront charge sufficiently inclusive to ensure that there are no barriers to victims of domestic violence?'

Thanks for the Lone Parents suggestion - I'll put a thread there directing people over here (trying desperately to keep all the responses in one place!)

Thanks
MNHQ

marking my place.

so you have to get the historical proof, or csa will get the proof there was domestic abuse?

This extra from nr parent, they still pay same percentages as now and an extra, you get same percentage as now minus less percentage?

I dont think kids should be taxed, which is what is happening if resident parents income sliced by government.

i think nrp will go nuts at paying more and wont take it out on government, other than poor kids getting grief i dont have other thoughts on nrp.

I think the paying level should be much higher for nrp who had no contact with a child for six months as all burdon on residentual parent and should go up for every year there is no contact from nrp.

i feel for nrp who see kids, take on holiday, give gifts etc and they pay the same as fuckers who have other kids, forget their first family, no uni help, no xmas, bday gifts or holidays.

Great!! More men (& some women) will get away with not paying for their dcs!
Why should the person bringing a child up be made to pay a fee to obtain money?

It takes two people to create a life, why should one parent shirk their duties??
Some people cannot afford to pay the fee, what then??-does the absent parent get of scot free?

What happens to people who are already claiming, whom recieve the money from the csa?-are we expected to pay a fee?
Im not happy with the new csa plans, the csa isn't that great at the moment but these 'plans' are even worse than the current ones

are csa going to link to hmrc and do an annual review now? are selfemployed nrp going to continue to use partners as directors etc to avoid csa payments when rp pay csa a fee?

are nrp living with a second family who have a partner claiming cb, so getting extra family income they get tax reduction on, getting the csa assessment before cb is removed as percentage is reduced for the second family child already. i hope that made sence.

are you sending this link to government or is there a link where to send thoughts for the consultation?

I thought the charging element had been overturned in the Lords?

"are nrp living with a second family who have a partner claiming cb, so getting extra family income they get tax reduction on, getting the csa assessment before cb is removed as percentage is reduced for the second family child already. i hope that made sence"

That doesn't make sense at all. One doesn't get a tax reduction on cb

"We will reflect the strength of feeling on charging back to the DWP, but please note that the charging issue is specifically excluded from the consultation"

What a surprise.

So what do they want to know? Yes it's a good idea to come to an agreement.

Blindingly obvious, the sticking point is that when a NRP REFUSES to pay then why should the RP and the children suffer MORE financial hardship under the new regime.

SWEARWORDS

Exactly what ShirleyKnot says: Why should the rp suffer yet more financial strain because the nrp doesn't want to agree to paying anything.