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

a sahp who is claiming benefits isnt supporting the children, the state is

Although if a LP has to do workfare the school hours thing isn't observed IIRC?

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

HMRC and the DWP are picking up on cases like this where wages are obviously lower than the NMW - so if your current girlfriend (odd choice of words, does she know she is a temporary measure, btw?) was paying you £95 a week for F/T hours, her/your company would be put under scrutiny.

I realise there is a significant loophole with self-employed NRP, and DP and I have wrestled with the dilemma of whether to go into business together, so protecting a small proportion of the household income for us to spend on the DC's ourselves, or whether DP goes into business on his own, and pays a higher rate of CM to his exW household, which already has a significantly higher standard of living that we can ever achieve. Unlike many NRP (and their wimen), we actually don't want to see the DC's go without, in either of their homes. At the moment, it's academic, as I'm the only income earner - but there are lots of options on the table.

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

Sorry, being dim, In what way is a PWC partners income assessed?

ok then mummyof but a sahp who claims no benefits with a working partner is. i didnt mention benefits a sahp does not equal being on benefits

tbf, I had one of my SCs live with me, my income wasnt "assessed", but I did spend a lot of my own money on them, and also on the one that wasnt resident. I dont think NRPs with no job can be penalised, any more than RPs with no job can be.

Because parents have a moral obligation to provide financial support for their children. If an NRP and his new partner make the active decision for the NRP to leave work, they should ensure they can still afford to pay maintenance if he does so, because it's the right thing to do. Just like when a together family have to decide whether they can afford to have a SAHP :)

Thanks Amber. It's a couple of years off for me, but what's available atm (I've been looking) is retail (ie, must be fully flexible) and zero hour contracts. I miss working :(

their own mother never so much as cooked the one who lived with us tea

Sorry, being dim, In what way is a PWC partners income assessed?

Their income can be used to reduce the PWC's entitlement to benefit in respect of the children, thereby compelling the PWC's partner to financially support his step children :)

I don't know how to get around that - clearly benefit entitlement has to be based on family income - but a weird disparity given that a NRP's partner's income is not taken into account for CM and nor would I want it to be.

optimisitic, I agree, where they have made an active decision (although I still dont think tax credits which are suppose to raise CHILDREN above poverty levels should be assessed), but where there is simply no work to be found and the NRP is doing their best to find some, then thats a different story, the households where the NRP has deliberately given up work to avoid maintenance are actually few and far between, the stories you read on mumsnet are not representative of the general population as you dont read the good news stories, only the crap

optimistic hell would freeze over before I let my income be taken into account for SCs maint, I'd rather live as 2 separate families (which incidentally would financially prob leave us better off), but there are reasons for that

I choose to spend my own money on the SCs, but I wouldnt hand 10p to DHs ex.

Well, my XP gave up work because he didn't like it and ran home to wifey. Near enough for me. I know several other people in a similar situation :)

Its not a disparity as such though is it, most benefits take into account all adults in a household, whereas child maint is payable by one parent, on behalf of his/her children, there is no disparity there.

"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?"

Because that money sometimes come solely from the state/nrp.

I know, and DHs ex didnt pay a penny towards her own DC and neither did the poor man around the corners exw, who pissed off and left him with the mortgage, 2 children, all the debts and then because he couldnt afford legal fees to sort divorce came around demanding half the equity in the house 10 years later.

But your tales and mine are not representative of the general population.

I said the NRP's partner should not have their income assessed MoM.

It is a disparity. Partners of PWC are expected to financially support their step children (and according to tax credit rules, can be expected to care for them if they are unemployed and the PWC is employed). Partners of NRP are not expected to financially support their step children.

"Partners of NRP are not expected to financially support their step children"

Well they are actually, if the NRP has access to the children and doesn't have an income

If an NRP and his new partner make the active decision for the NRP to leave work, they should ensure they can still afford to pay maintenance if he does so, because it's the right thing to do.

It depends on the reason for leaving, though, surely?

If the choice is between job relocation so only seeing the DC's a few times a year rather than weekly, or leaving work and reducing CM until another job can be secured, then is that a choice? How about other resident DC's? If a household relocates to keep a NRP in work, then any resident DC's also lose out on a relationship with their own NRP.

It all seems so simple until it is actually put into practice - which is why I think a more individual approach would be best for the DC's, but it is too expensive

Really? There is a legal obligation for the partner's of NRPs to do that is there?

Who else do you think pays for the shelter/food/everything else while an NRP with no income has the child for access?

Again what is good for the goose is good for the gander, either rp partner and nrp pay towards stepkids or they both dont, its crap one type of step parent is expected to pay and not the other.

NADM, there is surely a 3rd option of taking the relocation as a temporary solution and also seeking alternative employment?

Well, if the NRP lived alone they'd be in receipt of benefits to pay :) if they live together, the partner is compelled to support the NRP (as should be) but not the children. Their income is not used in assessments WRT the children.

" its crap one type of step parent is expected to pay and not the other"

But surely a PWC partner who gets together with a non-working pwc takes on that financial responsibility knowingly.

Partners of non resident step children do support them, most have a house suited to the size of all the children in the family, who do you think helps to pay for it? plus all the associated bills, council tax etc.

For decent NRPs there are significant costs associated with having their children, many exactly the same are there are for RPs, the only difference being that in a standard 40/60 spilt (EOW Fri-Mon, 1 overnight midweek and half hols) 100% of the benefits, CB, tax credits, HB (is applicable) go into the RPs household, while the NRP pays maint for children they are having half the time and also sees the tax credits for the children in the NRPs household reduced to fund children who are already being funded.