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

"Well, if the NRP lived alone they'd be in receipt of benefits to pay"

They'd be in receipt of minimum benefits deemed minimal sufficient to keep a single adult without children from poverty, yes

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

The same could be said for a NRP partner then, surely?

but in the case of a resident parent for a PWC choosing to support a SAHM in that decision, that is not the decision of the NRP, the NRP (rightly) gets no say in whether the PWC is a SAHP or not, its a household decision made by the RP and new partner.

Its their choice to support the SAHP.

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

Not sure how that would work - surely you would either uproot the resident DC's to a new home and then bring them back again - or try to run yet another temporary home for the NRP until they find a job local to the family homes - and how long do you wait? If the NRP relocates temporarily, how long is it acceptable for DC's contact with them to remain occasional? What if a job near home doesn't become available?

"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"

DH's ex and her new partner decided to have 3 more children. They didn't move to a bigger house. Actually the house isn't suited to the size of the family yet she chose to give up her job to be a sahp for the younger ones. The elder children do not need a sahp, they need money. Yet she is refusing to take a job. Because the amount she receives in cm + cb + tax credits outweighs the cost of the elder children

Who do you think pays for subsistence/council tax for the children at the nrp's home?

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

Yeah there's hardly any jobs that fit within school hours never mind the abundance that are needed for all the LPs currently on benefits. That coupled with the fact that everyone and their dog is looking for work now it is far from easy. Who would you employ? The LP with childcare issues or the person who can be as flexible as needed?

Lots if not all retail jobs have min one weekend in four factored into the contract which for lots is just not doa-ble.

It sucks.

I wasn't saying it was the NRP's decision I was saying that the partner of the PWC has his income assessed as part of the claim for the children's benefits and if he is unemployed and the PWC works he is expected to care for the children while she works (under tax credit rules WRT the childcare element). The income of the NRP partner is not used in any financial calculations WRT the children.

And if legally, the partner of a PWC is compelled to support her children, this seems at odds with the fact that NRP partners are not.

"the NRP (rightly) gets no say in whether the PWC is a SAHP or not"

So why can a pwc legitimately become a sahp but an nrp cannot?

nadm.

she does indeed know. and not if the job is exempt from nmw such as taxi drivers.
also ctc if its a joint claim with the nrp and step parent are taken into account as income.this includeds any additional elements that are paid because of a disabled dc even if the element if paid by dwp would be excluded as protected income.

allnew sorry i didnt realise we where turning this into a benefit bashing thread.

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

Jobs are not for life - things change, jobs disappear, circumstances change

"The income of the NRP partner is not used in any financial calculations WRT the children"

Yes it is - if the NRP partner income is taken into account wrt the household in which the children have access, then the household income is lower because of the NRPP income DESPITE there being children to accomodate in the house

who is benefit bashing?

"But surely a PWC partner who gets together with a non-working pwc takes on that financial responsibility knowingly" - tongue in cheek comment for those posters who like saying same of NRPP

the NRPs income isnt taken into account mostly, because the NRP cannot claim ANY benefits for the children, even in the case of a dedicated 50/50 split, there is ALWAYS a resident parent for benefits purposes and 100% of benefits go there.

all new if there are children in resident in the nrp's home the maintainance liability is reduced because of that

NADM, I wasn't saying it was always possible, just that there was a third option.

allnew if she has three younger children the cost of childcare would be massive. I can see why she isn't working tbh. If the money she receives exceeds what they cost, the what is the issue? Surely it is that she isn't actually spending the money on the children, if what you say is correct. Her getting a job is unlikely to improve their situation.

Amber I agree. My previous job was retail, and I was lucky to have been there long enough to negotiate fixed hours, but after XP moved away I couldn't afford the childcare (and then my childcare fell through anyway) and I had to leave. I'll never get that same opportunity for negotiation again. My parents spent 6 months basically paying for me to go to work, it was ridiculous.

agreed mummy

allnew do you not think comments by saying the pwc if on benefits is not contributing towards her children because the state is, is not just a tad bashing?

how about saying the pwc is using the legally obtained benefits to support the child instead?

"So why can a pwc legitimately become a sahp but an nrp cannot?"

The PWC can become a SAHP through the support of their new partner (or to a lesser degree given the constraints on them, benefits). The children are still paid for.

So the NRP can also become a SAHP through the support of their new partner or the benefits system. But maintenance should still be paid, even if it's at a flat rate with no assessment done on the partner.

"allnew if she has three younger children the cost of childcare would be massive. I can see why she isn't working tbh. If the money she receives exceeds what they cost, the what is the issue? Surely it is that she isn't actually spending the money on the children, if what you say is correct. Her getting a job is unlikely to improve their situation"

So you have just proved the point that NADM has been making all along. Sometimes it is simply not feasible or financially sensible for a parent to work, because of the family setup theyre in.

the NRP cannot claim ANY benefits for the children, even in the case of a dedicated 50/50 split, there is ALWAYS a resident parent for benefits purposes and 100% of benefits go there.

They can be split, and a few successful 50:50 care arrangements have done so (I think couthymow talks about it earlier in this thread).
My ex claimed CTC for a while, and I received the CB

I do agree that there is (legally) at present, a resident and non-resident household for all DC's even in 50:50 care arrangements.

I'm hoping that when it changes (which it is going to) it will reduce the conflict between parents who are fighting for this status.

"Yes it is - if the NRP partner income is taken into account wrt the household in which the children have access, then the household income is lower because of the NRPP income DESPITE there being children to accomodate in the house"

I don't understand what you mean here?

nrp partners may knowingly have their income taken into account from the new csa as it once was, maybe the government will be more equal towards family income levels.

Personally, I think neither rp or nrp partners income should be taken into account. Only exception is nrp partner pretending they earn all self employed income.

sock no it wasn't benefit bashing, it was responding the comment that the parent with care is always supporting the children, while an NRP is not, it would come across as benefit bashing if it was taken out of context, although on such a fast moving thread I can see how that has happened.

Self Employed non resident parents
Who declare negative income therefore avoiding Maintenance judgements and confusing the kahunas out of the vague and ineffective CSA.
Then that same self employed NRP getting a larger mortgage than i have?
On no income?