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

Again I'm baffled why its so difficult to get.

I'm not talking about those that do pay I'm talking about those that dont which as has been said numerous times is the majority

I don't understand why posters here who's DH/Ps do pay are getting het up about this. If your DH pays towards his childrens upkeep then no one is talking about them.

If your DH pays towards his childrens upkeep then no one is talking about them

and that's exactly the point - we are trying to talk about them - we are trying to explain that the solutions being put forward on this thread to solve the problem of non-paying NRP will unfairly penalise the NRP who currently are paying.
and we have been criticised for doing so, and not putting the needs of the majority ahead of our own circumstances.

But similarly why do you get get up when people tell positive stories? Do you feel it dilutes you own point or something? Why not just be happy that some people have good arrangements, rather than caveat that by repeating your point?

allnew any number of 'positive stories' couldn't dilute the fact that the majority pay F all. Its not about my point at all.

Be happy? Is this thread about sharing the joy of amicable arrangements?

Its great that some have good arrangements. Is this thread the place to hear about it? That's like going on a thread about domestic violence and what can be done to tackle it and telling of what a great guy your DH is and how happy your marriage is.

NADM very early on in this thread you complained about it turning into a 'NRP bashing' thread. I think you were wrong there TBH as if anyone was being bashed it was the non paying CM evading NRPs not NRPs in general which brings me back to my point about why are some getting defensive when their DHs are not in the 'CM evaders' camp?

Personally its the Gov who should be being 'bashed' here if anyone as these new rules will do F all to tackle the issue of CM evasion.

Most NRPs are not excellent or responsible.

I think this argument has some legs, lots of NRP's go to a great deal of trouble to avoid paying, but why does that happen? Is it because all those men are bastards?or is it (for low income NRP's) the financial burden is too great which means they have no money to spend on the children when they are with them.

NADM very early on in this thread you complained about it turning into a 'NRP bashing' thread. I think you were wrong there TBH as if anyone was being bashed it was the non paying CM evading NRPs not NRPs in general which brings me back to my point about why are some getting defensive when their DHs are not in the 'CM evaders' camp?

My comment to MNHQ about the thread becoming NRP bashing was in response to two very NRP bashing comments.

Firstly, a statement was made that NRP (and their partner) who is currently paying CM as required, will get "tight" and buy cheaper gifts than before for the DC's in order to compensate for the charges they incur.

The other comment I was responding to was the the oft-expressed view on MN that NRP who don't work and are therefore only paying the minimum should get a job, any job, anywhere, at any cost to their relationship with their DC's and if they don't the penalties should be bailiffs, community service and prison. The suggestion that the minimum a NRP should pay be calculated from a 24 hour NMW week, regardless of what the NRP is earning or currently paying.

If you scroll back far enough, you'll find them.

That's why I'm defensive. This thread does PWC no favours at all - it implies that PWC care greatly about the value of gifts given to their DC's by their NRP, and that the money provided to the PWC should always be more important than the relationship the DC's have with their NRP.

As a PWC, and a "partner" of a NRP, I want to be clear to the DWP/government that is not the universally held view.

NADM, nobody has said NRPs should do anything at the expense of their contact or relationship with their children.

NADM, nobody has said NRPs should do anything at the expense of their contact or relationship with their children.

Really? I think that imprisoning someone for to their inability to get a job is likely to put a dent in the DC's relationship with the NRP, don't you?

if a MINIMUM amount of maintenance was taken based on a 24 hr NMW basic at ALL times, even when unemployed, it would be a damn good incentive for NRP's to take A job, ANY job in order not to get further into debt. Sod this stupid £5 a week shit. And if they don't get a job? Bailiffs. If they STILL don't get a job? Community Service. If they STILL don't get a fucking job? Prison.

I understand that not everyone is facing the stark reality of long term unemployment, and so don't get how unrealistic this is, but some of us are.

Prison is a possibility for PWC who deny contact I wouldn't go as far as Couthy, but I do think unemployed NRPs should be forced to job hunt under the same criteria as those on JSA, reardless of whether they're claiming benefits, and should be subject to the same minimum charge of £5 (£10 under the new system). If they're not looking hard enough to satisfy JSA criteria then I see no reason why there should not be sanctions for it. Maintenance avoidance is financial abuse and should be treated as a crime in its own right.

I do think unemployed NRPs should be forced to job hunt under the same criteria as those on JSA, reardless of whether they're claiming benefits, and should be subject to the same minimum charge of £5 (£10 under the new system). If they're not looking hard enough to satisfy JSA criteria then I see no reason why there should not be sanctions for it.

Now that I do agree with - of course NRP should be doing their damnedest to support their DC's by job-hunting - but to be punished when they are doing their best and failing? How does that help the DC's?

A thread about domestic violence FFS. That's hardly a good analogy. The views of mn users was asked for, not just those currently in a bad place. And it was actually your response to a MNHQ post I was picking up on. Why don't you complain to them if you think this comment of theirs was inappropriate on the thread

Why don't you complain to them if you think this comment of theirs was inappropriate on the thread

I don't need to complain and I didn't see it as inappropriate as it was one comment. I responded to it as I feel that an individuals experience can't really be used as 'proof' that a huge group are the same.

The DV analogy was in response to your comment to me that I should be 'happy' for those with good arrangements.

I understand that not everyone is facing the stark reality of long term unemployment, and so don't get how unrealistic this is, but some of us are

Actually I am as I am the only parent of two that my children have that has to shoulder the childcare responsibilities. Also having a disabled child means my childcare options are small to nil. My ex however doesn't have to worry about any of that yet is still picky about the sort of job he wants to do. Despite all of that this Gov is making moves to make me be forced to undertake any work even though I have a disabled child that I am and will always be carer to.

Of course it is easier for a NRP to work. Yes finding a job at this current time is not easy for anyone but the Govs continued focus on the single PWC getting a job is warped. Why go after the parent that is parenting yet the NRPs get away scot free? That's not right.

This is all bull anyway. All this hoo haa about charges just glosses over the issue that this Gov does nothing to NRPs that shirk their responsibilities.

All these changes will do is make the NRPs who do pay pay more and the PsWC pay to get the CM so the children lose out all round. Punishing financially those who do the right thing and continuing to let the mmajority of NRPs swan off.

what is the Gov going to do about that majority who pay nothing

So yes I can see why some people are calling for tougher measures for CM evaders.

No-one except an idiot would take one comment from one individual as proof of anything FGS

So yes I can see why some people are calling for tougher measures for CM evaders.

As am I - but not at the expense of those who are committed, loving parents who meet their DC's needs to the best of their ability, unlike some of the majority who think that the good NRP should be disadvantaged in order to accommodate for the bad.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander, rp can be imprisoned for not allowing contact or their child not attending school, I cant see why there is no prison sentence for nrp not paying child maintenance MINIMUM or using a partner to hide self employed income.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander, rp can be imprisoned for not allowing contact or their child not attending school, I cant see why there is no prison sentence for nrp not paying child maintenance MINIMUM or using a partner to hide self employed income.

How many Pwc have been emprisoned for with-holding contact?

Probably about the same number of NRPs who've been imprisoned for failing to pay their debt to the CSA? The point was, it's an option that's available.

Rps don't get imprisoned for withholding contact - it's why court orders aren't worth the paper they are written on.

It's legalised kidnapping and emotional abuse (when done with out just cause) but hey who cares about that really?

rp can be imprisoned for not allowing contact or their child not attending school, I cant see why there is no prison sentence for nrp not paying child maintenance MINIMUM or using a partner to hide self employed income.

That's not what was being proposed - the suggestion was that all NRP who fail to secure a job that provides the PWC with a minimum CM equivalent to 24 hours NMW per week should be subject to bailiffs, community service and prison.

The clear expectation (from some PWC) is that NRP's who are jobseeking should take any fulltime job they can, anywhere they can, for any money they can, for any hours they can, in order to contribute financially towards the PWC household, and if they don't - they should be penalised, by imprisonment if necessary. The impact that this would have on the PWC household and the DC's involved is totally disregarded.

And most NRPs (male and female) are decent human beings and parents as are most RPs.

But we don't get to hear about them only about the tossers on both sides.

As I said, I wouldn't go as far as Couthy but I do think it should apply to those who don't make sufficient effort to find work. I make no apologies for that. Isn't the expectation that all jobseekers (on JSA) take any job though (except those with caring responsibilities who can look for reduced hours etc)? I though benefits could be sanctioned if they didn't?

And I said PWC can be imprisoned, the option is there for the courts to use even if they don't use it.

But everyone knows they don't use it - it's a joke - no other type of court order can be ignored with impunity.

It's about time they did though.

FGS, I was drawing a parallel.

Couthy suggested NRPs should be sanctioned for not working, up to and including prison (this is already an option for those who are in significant arrears to the CSA). NADM said this would be detrimental to the children, more so than the NRP's financial abuse of them.

I was just saying that PWCs subject to court orders can be subject to sanctions, up to and including prison, for breaking that court order. I have seen many people argue in favour of these sanctions being used more often, and nobody seems to think that perhaps the children being taken from their main carer and said carer being sent to prison might actually be more detrimental to the children than their lack of relationship with the NRP.

The most extreme sanctions should only be used in the most extreme situations, but they have to be made available in order for that to happen.

Do you have another suggestion as to how those NRPs who remain unemployed but outside of the benefit system should be forced encouraged into work?