Guest post: Child maintenance fees - 'you've made your bed, now lie in it’?

[KateMumsnet]

This week, more than 50,000 letters have been sent out by the Department for Work and Pensions to parents in England, Scotland and Wales who currently pay and receive child maintenance through the old Child Support Agency (CSA).

Attempting to sum up the changes in a nutshell is difficult; there are acronyms aplenty and percentages at every corner - but here goes:

The CSA is no more, and is being replaced by the Child Maintenance Service (CMS). Around one million cases will be transferred to the new arrangements, with the government saying that this scheme will offer greater efficiencies and - whisper it - a 90 million pound saving for the tax payer.

The major difference is that fees are set to be introduced – to both parents – under the new scheme. Parents will be asked to make their own private agreements and if that proves impossible, the parent with care (PWC) - usually the mother - can pay £20 to apply for a new maintenance order.

If the non resident parent (NRP) – most of whom are men – misses payments, the PWC can apply for payments to be taken automatically from their ex’s gross salary - but the government will charge them 4% of their child support for doing so.

There seems to be a growing feeling amongst taxpayers that they should not have to fund the messy divorces of warring couples. As one half of a warring (ex) couple, it feels like the message from the government is: you've made your bed, now lie in it.

They assume that it's a choice - a wilful act, to be on terrible terms with the father of your children. And one that a woman can reverse by just trying a bit harder. Of course it's not a choice - as Caroline Criado-Perez argues, one third of new applicants only turned to the CSA because private arrangements had failed - 45% had experienced violence or abuse from their ex, and 30% had no contact with them at all.

Even if your separation has been relatively amicable, coming to a private agreement is immensely difficult. I did it – eventually - preferring not to approach the CSA for all sorts of reasons, but it was incredibly stressful. When you're in the middle of a divorce, seeing your ex across the street is hard, never mind sitting down and having a rational conversation about handing over money. It us took 18 months of hard-wrangling and sly game-playing (on both sides) - with a predictable negative impact on my health and therefore my ability to look after my children.

There are people who can help, but they are inordinately expensive; when you have the choice of paying a solicitor at £200 per hour, or a £20 fee to the CMS it's a no-brainer. But women shouldn't have to choose between one fee and another – at this particular time in their lives, they need a service that is free to use.

Because, at the heart of all this blather are not the parents, but the children. The government seem to have lost sight of the fact that Child Support is there, as the phrase suggests, to support our children. It's the children who will miss out on that 4%.

When I was younger, I assumed that the people who made Laws and Rules were highly educated civil servants with brains the size of planets; all sitting at individual desks in oak panelled rooms, wrestling with the problems of the nation and coming to conclusions that are best for us all.

Now that I'm older and fustier, I now see that these rule-makers are just people like you and me, and they make cock-ups. In this case, they have certainly done so.

You implied it.

You don't need to say something outright, to imply it. When you post something that resonates with something already there in our culture (such as hatred of women, fear of women having control of their own reproduction rather than having it under the control of men, fear of women living without men, men only being responsible for children they want to take responsibility for etc.) you don't need to spell out what you mean, the tide of ill-informed misogyny is quite enough for your reader to know exactly what you mean.

I opened my case with the CSA due my my ex stopping our daughters maintenance as his new partner convinced him that he shouldn't be paying as I work full time. In fact my ex told me via letter stating that this was the only way that he would pay.
Since opening the case I have had several issues with them failing to collect even though a DEO is in place. I will pay the extra to ensure that our daughter receives her maintenance.
I doubt very much that my ex and I would come to an amicable arrangement as I don't trust him not to renege.

If they claim joint tax credit together with their new partner would as that is took into account when the csa make decision on the amount paid...

You did imply it, Kaya.

Yes Kaya then a % of that is taken into account because it is a joint income. That means some of that figure is the NRPs income.

Interesting first posts by the way

Jeordie In many cases there have been multiple assaults before a woman reports an abusive partner or leaves.
And in the cases of emotional abuse it is harder to "prove" And the reason ive put prove in inverted commas is because this is more of the onus being put back on the victim again.

More misogyny.

I was physically abused but there is absolutely no police record of it.

It's not as cut and dry as many think.

"Something needs to be put in place for those with evidence that their ex is violent and abusive so that they don't have to deal with them."

What of those who don't have evidence that their ex is violent and abusive? IE the majority? What sort of evidence?

Most women do not report DV attacks. They also don't tell anyone else about them because they feel ashamed, frightened and in denial. They don't want their friends/ family to think badly of the man they're with and to think of them as a victim. So when women do call the police, on average they have been attacked 30+ times.

If they got divorced on attack number 28 there is no evidence, even though the abuse may have been ongoing and horrific.

DV is so widespread and over represented in couples who divorce, that limiting measures to women whose ex was abusive, is basically ensuring that most victims of abuse will in fact have to deal with their abusers and the evidence is overwhelming, that abusers will use maintenance as a further means to continue the abuse.

its a joke my sister had to use the csa as her ex refused to pay now she will be penalised as he yet again wont agree to it-just glad it will hit him more but still my nephew loses out

The main issue is that the non resident parent will pay a much much higher percentage even if he/she would like t make the private arrangement but the resident parent insists on the CMA. You could argue the new scheme is utterly biased against non resident parents.

Mind you I am in the camp of women who pay out to men on divorce so I probably don't have the traditional female views on this.

*What of those who don't have evidence that their ex is violent and abusive? IE the majority? What sort of evidence?

Most women do not report DV attacks. They also don't tell anyone else about them because they feel ashamed, frightened and in denial. They don't want their friends/ family to think badly of the man they're with and to think of them as a victim. So when women do call the police, on average they have been attacked 30+ times.*

I understand that DV is so widespread and emotional abuse is also very hard to prove. Looking back at my previous post it does make such a sweeping generalisation in itself - completely unintentional. Sanctions need to be put in place for those in any type of abusive relationship to be honest. And this boils down to another issue aside from the CMS. More needs to be done to protect those victims who have suffered at the hands of abuse as certainly there's not enough being done at present.

Jeordie I think part of the problem is that many women simply don't know they have been in abusive relationships. I have a friend whose xh financially, emotionally and physically abused her for years and she still doesn't believe me when I tell her that what he did is recognised by the authorities as domestic violence. She never mentioned it in court because she didn't know it was an issue. (Oh and he sometimes doesn't pay her the full amount of maintenance because he uses it to keep her in line. If she really irritates him, he doesn't pay her any at all that month. That's an aspect of private arrangements the government aren't interested in.)

She would never show up on any figures for abuse, simply because she doesn't know it happened to her. Even though she once had to call the police because he tried to suffocate her, she doesn't think that what he did was "that bad".

And I think that's where we have a real problem - we have a tiny minority of women who have evidence of abuse, we have a much bigger number who have no evidence and I have no idea of how big the number is who have suffered domestic abuse but have not recognised it as such. And then we have the number who haven't suffered any abuse and our state works on the assumption that they are overwhelmingly in the majority, which is at least questionable.

Roll on relationship education in schools so that at least people recognise domestic abuse when they see it.

Has anyone had a letter about the changes yet? Am I correct in also thinking that you still have to pay the £20 fee for them to track down the NRP if they can't be found? How on earth is that fair?

The new changes fall straight in to the hands of abusive partners to use at their advantage. How the fuck do they expect you to come to an amicable agreement with someone who's been emotionally, physically or financially abusive? The government expect someone to reason with an ex who has knocked their confidence and self esteem for six. People who are slowly going through counselling to bring themselves back to who they were, people who are on the mend. Doing this will knock them back straight to square one.

Some people are still going through abuse despite separating with an ex. These type of people are so manipulative and know exactly how subtle to be with it too.

Actually Jane that's incorrect. The system has changed so that either party can opt out of calc and collect without the other parties permission. This means no NRP is forced into paying charges for no reason. It can only be enforced when there is no payment.

The only person that actually has no choice about the charges is the RP who's ex dodges payments.

Yes, but isn't it sometimes like non resident parent pays a massive 20% charge and resident parent a tiny 4% charge?

Not if they pay it voluntarily Jane.

There will be additional charges if the Child Maintenance Service has to collect money from your child’s other parent and pay it to you. The paying parent will have to pay an additional 20 per cent on top of the usual child maintenance amount, and you will have that child maintenance amount reduced by four per cent. If your child’s other parent pays the money directly to you, neither of you will have to pay these additional charges (C&P from Gingerbread website)

I think that its far more scandalous that the receiving parent will have to pay 4% even though it is totally beyond their control tbh

Just to be clear - if the RP doesn't want to deal with the NRP, but the NRP is happy to pay the money directly to the RP and will consistently pay (if only to the piddly level the CMS are demanding of him) can the RP still insist on going through the CMS, which will mean charges?

What I mean is, when we both get our letters if he says that he's happy to pay me directly and I say that I don't want that and want to pay extra to use the CMS do we both still get charged?

Mine doesn't pay much so I imagine that he'll probably want to pay me directly (it'll probably make him more consistent TBH). However, what if I like having the CSA/CMS between us as a barrier? Can I refuse direct payments from him, even if he does everything that the CMS ask him to do? It would mean getting less money of course as the CMS would take their cut that way but I'm just curious if it's an option.

I know but there are resident mothers who insist on the CMA (for good reasons because they know their men are unreliable) so even if a man wants to agree it voluntarily the mother for a penalty of only 4% can insist on the CMA and the man has to pay 20% more! It seems very unfair to me.

I think we should just return to court orders if people cannot agree and then each side then sues on line and if they win sends in bailiffs etc.

Jane the CMS does not work that way.

There are different options with CMS payments. For both options they will calculate maintenance due and send letters to instruct the NRP of the situation. There are then 2 options:-

1. NRP contacts CMS, agrees to comply with the payment plan, requests bank details of RP and makes direct payments. The claim is still ongoing but there is no need for calc and collect (this is free and either parent can opt for this without the others permission, therefore the RP cannot force a NRP willing to make payments to also take on the charge costs)

1. If the above does not happen (the NRP do not make the payments) it is then escalated to the calc and collect service. This is where the fees come in.

So actually it is the NRP who holds the cards on whether or not they pay the charges not the RP. This service cannot be used as any kind of "weapon".

Thank you Easy. That makes a lot more sense now.

If the NRP opts for Option 1 and doesn't miss payments where does the CMS come into this? Just to check on the situation once a year? Or anything else? Can we continue to call the CMS anytime we want with concerns about ex if he pays on time but we want to see if circumstances have changed?

And what details do we have to provide ex with if they choose Option 1? Just bank details? Or anything else? Do we have to talk to ex directly or do the CMS take care of that?

Thanks again

Well the long and short of it is the case remains open and if at any point the case needs escalating to option 2 it makes it easier to do so.

The NRP is also required to keep the CMS updated about changes to employment, salary, personal circumstances (more children etc) and the NRP may be subject to spot checks, especially if there has been a dispute raised regarding the information.

It is just bank details that need to be supplied however many women who have been in abusive relationships don't feel comfortable with this so there are ways round that.

There is really no need for anyone to have to speak to their ex.

How will the RP know when the NRP situation changes though?

At the moment my ex pays £5 through the CSA because he's on benefits. I have not spoken to him since the birth and have no idea which benefit he's on. The CSA are linked to the benefits system which is how they found him.

If it's a private arrangement and he starts work for example the money will just stop. What do I do then? Pay £20 to go on their books again?

That is why completely private arrangements are not workable for so many and CSA/CMS is necessary for lots of people.

I'd agree with fees if they were recoverable from the nrp only, particularly if an investigation was required or salary taken.
Fees would be joint only where a joint application was made instead of a private arrangement.

Easy, so the 20% extra payable by the non resident parent is only payable if they fail to pay? That is not as bad as I thought. Not that any of this applies to me - I have the children 365 days a year (not from choice although they are lovely), he doesn't pay a penny and I paid him. At least it is very simple for me - I 100% provide for the children, I provided for their father and their is no dispute over residence as he just about never contacts them. Expensive for me but simple.