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

I would also imprison anyone aiding a self employed nrp in aiding defrauding a child of their MINIMUM child maintence. For example Dad claims he ears 5p a month and his second wife earns 5 grand a month working for his business.

Sorry, I meant to go back and change "financial abuse" to "lack of maintenance" given that NADM made the point that some NRPs may be trying extremely hard to find work. That's why I'd place the sanction on looking for work rather than finding it:)

At least its available as an option unlike in the case of non paying NRPs.

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

Well my posts have clearly stated that I'm talking about getting tough on the wont pays not the cants.

You seem to be missing that.

No suggestions any more so than for Pwc with children of secondary school age refusing to find work and financially support their children, no

JSA requirements limit job hunting to within 90 minutes commute of home - in rural/isolated areas, this results in literally hundreds of applications for every job, and employers can take their pick of the most appropriate candidates for each.

A former middle manager with 20 years of admin experience doesn't even get an interview for toilet cleaning jobs - despite what some may think.

No you are right - prison for legalised kidnapping is considered unacceptable - prison for shop lifting, driving offences, petty crime - that's completely acceptable.

PWC of secondary age children who don't work and claim benefits are subject to normal JSA rules (from age 12 IIRC. PWC of at least one child who is over 5 and under 12 can seek reduced hours). PWC of secondary age children who don't work and don't claim benefits obviously have another source of income - be it property, savings, partner, parents etc etc. Given that they are PWC, their children are financially supported by them somehow, regardless of where the money comes from. Very few (if any) NRPs pay sufficient maintenance to allow the PWC to have no other income at all from benefits or other sources.

NRP of any age children who don't work and claim benefits pay a £5 flat rate. NRP of any age children who don't work and don't claim benefits have a nil assessment and contribute nothing and are under no obligation to rectify that situation.

My point was that many think it's perfectly acceptable for a PWC to be sent to prison for withholding contact and should happen more often. Yet not for withholding maintenance by refusing to get a job, which is what Couthy was actually referring to?

People can go to prison for withholding CSA monies once court orders are in place.
And there is a difference between withholding money and not having any in the first place.

The whole system is shocking and in need of a complete overhaul - I don't think it can be addressed in piecemeal segments without considering the holistic picturez

I'd prefer to hear that from couthy

I have previously debated the issue with her and her position has been very clear - it is her belief that that are always jobs if NRP look hard enough, so they should be penalised for not working, as its always a choice on their part.

It's the one issue on MN that I've never shared with DP - he is already so emotionally shattered trying to do the right thing for two households having been out of work for 8 months - learning that he is judged so harshly by some would destroy him

"Given that they are PWC, their children are financially supported by them somehow, regardless of where the money comes from"

And if that money comes from the state and/or the nrp (or anyone else for that matter), then the pwc isn't financially supporting the child

But if they don't claim benefits then unemployed NRPs have a nil liability and don't accrue any arrears, so are never in debt to the CSA in the first place. There are no sanctions for these NRPs. In my case, XP lives off his wife's income, other people I know the NRP lives off his parents, so there is no income to assess. That is why I think these NRPs, when a CSA claim is made by the PWC, should be subject to JSA regulations (even if they don't claim the benefit) and should be subject to the minimum payment, even if it remains unpaid and accrues arrears. They would just need to use different sanctions to the ones actually claiming JSA, that's all.

The children are financially supported through the PWC, however that PWC chooses to do so. Maintenance is not reduced by PWC's income so is irrelevant. If a partner/parent pays towards the PWC and children then that is their choice. If they have income from other sources (not work) than that is their business. Regardless, on the PWC's side there is financial support from somewhere.

I covered benefits in the first sentence, LPs of over 12s on JSA are subject to the same criteria as all other JSA claimants. Do you suggest they be subject to more stringent checks than those with no dependants?

What about pwc who are sahm, should they be fined as well? DH's ex gave up her job and so her household income is significantly lower and the children are receiving sigficantly less than they were before, because of the choices they made as a couple (to accomodate their new joint children). Should she be made to work to support the first children?

They have financial support from her side, yes? Her family income pays for their home and their food and their clothes? Her partner earns the money, she looks after the children, their joint pot pays for all of their children.

Do know what my XP's "family income" pays towards his kids? Fuck all.

If an NRP wants to give up their job, then morally the "family income" has to cover maintenance. This is why all NRP should have flat liability that has to be paid regardless of where the money comes from. It comes through the NRP, just like the financial support that comes through the PWC.

"They have financial support from her side, yes?"

Actually no, the maintenance DH pays + the child benefit she receives > the cost she incurs to support them.

Now she has given up her job, they live in a much more crowded environment, very old clothes, no holidays as before, in fact overall very large drop in living standards

LPs of over 12s on JSA are subject to the same criteria as all other JSA claimants

Its 7 yrs old now and changing to 5. Talk of even lower too.

what a surprise that once again a csa reform compleatly ignores the issues created by a nrp being in recept of a benefit that you can recive in addition to being a millionare thus ending up with a £5pw assesment. (one that shit loads of people refuse to belive happens but does lots).or allows this same benefit to just reduce what you pay if you use the variation.

example
say i earnt £120 pw (no other income) i would pay £10pw for a nrdc
say i earnt £120pw (no other income) but included in that is this benefit i would pay £5 for a nrdc.
say i recived this benefit (incidently its not a protected disability benefit) gave my company to my current girlfriend claimed she only paid me £95pw despite admiting i worked full time i would still only pay £5pw

a variation system that is shockingly wrong.and unable to accept evidence that a tribunal can (such as film obtained by a licenced private eye),enables a nrp to reduce his maintainance because he has a disabled resident dc/sdc but wont give a rp of a disabled dc any increase.

targets decent nrps as they are an easyer target than the deadbeats who lie.

where lifestyle inconsistant is only relivant if the nrp is an extream and not if they are self employed at a normal wage but claim they earn peanuts.even though if that were the case they couldnt afford to eat or house themselves and places them below benefit levels but none are obtained due to a claim proved as fraudulent.

allows a nrp to obviously divert income without sanction if its diverted to a partner but hmrc accept the accounts.

allows a disabled child element and sever dissablement element out of a joint child tax credit claim to be concidered as fair game when assesing maintainance.

to many to list to be honest.and now they are going to charge people to use it at the same time as reducing a persons ability to obtain proper legal advice/support.

with regard to the dv issue and that alone.

would the rp have to obtain evidence from these agencies? who would fund that?
how can it be fair to force any rp who has experanced dv to further humiliate themselves by obtaining this proof?
how will it safeguard people at risk of further abuse?

But if the pwc has younger children with a new partner they can still refuse to work and fail to support the older children financially

Its 7 yrs old now and changing to 5. Talk of even lower too.

I thought LPs with a youngest child aged 5-11 could look for jobs to fit around school hours/childcare, whereas those with over 12s have to take any job as with all other JSA claimants?

all NRP should have flat liability that has to be paid regardless of where the money comes from. It comes through the NRP, just like the financial support that comes through the PWC.

That could solve my problem in one hit, optimistic

My exH has debt management plan in place, so his fiancée could pay CM for my DD, which I could then pass on to DP's exW as CM for their DC's.
All problems solved; the DC's don't lose out and the burden on the taxpayer is reduced -

There are a few issues that would need ironing out, because if step-parents are responsible for paying CM, then there is an implied parental responsibility there - but overall, I think you might have something

It's the NRP's business to source the money NADM. Doesn't mean whoever he gets the money from is supporting the DCs or in anyway responsible to them, it comes through him. The liability is his, it is his choice whether to then accrue arrears and face sanctions or to source the money from somewhere else - be it a job, other money he has access to (property/savings) or a family member.

I don't agree with assessing new partners' income, although this happens already in the case of many PWC ;)

allnew

how on earth is a sahp who provides a roof heat light food clothing ect to all the resident dc's failing to support one of them?

why should family income be used - why should child benefit and tax credits, paid for one set of children, be used to fund another set of children who are in receipt of those things themselves??

why should one set of children be driven into poverty to support another

Optomistic. Yes you're right. I thought you thought it was still 12 as it was a few years back.