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

Apparently the oldest cases have the highest proportion of nil liability assessments, so that's why they're doing those first. Also so that the oldest children "get the benefit" of the new (supposedly more reliable) system before becoming too old. I think it said that if when the case comes up for closure the youngest child will turn 20 in the next 6 months (they will give 6 months warning of case closure) then the case will be left to run rather than closed and re-opened.

Just when I have FINALLY got a good 'working' relationship with all 3. I didn't want DS1's dad reassessed from his nil assessment right now, as it may cause him to rush through taking him back to his as per the previous court order so that he doesn't have to pay, when it is in DS1's best interests for that not to happen yet, and only see his dad outside of that house. Hence not wanting the CSA to reassess.

Is there any way I can stop the reassessment without closing the case?! I NEED the case open but with a nil assessment, it's what's in DS1's best interest even if he ISN'T there 50-50 right now, and his dad theoretically should be paying £5 a week now, I don't bloody want it when it's not what's best for him!!

No cases will be allowed to stay open, but they won't be starting to move cases until 2014 so you may find things are better then Couthy?

The only reason you might have to move before then is if one of the NRPs has a new claim opened by an additional PWC (if that makes sense)? That would trigger a new case if it was after this October (if time-scales go to plan). Is that likely?

Or you could only claim for your DD and DSes 2&3, and not claim at all for DS1?

Could be, if DS1's SM doesn't sort herself out. I can't see his dad coping with only seeing him for 8 hrs a week just because his partner hurt him and won't admit it or apologise. DS1 has said that he doesn't 't want to see her until she can control herself and not try to hit him, and not pull him out of her way in a temper and bruise him.

All of which means that there IS a possibility they could split up and she could claim against him...

Thing is, if I don't have SN open claim, and he gets a job (Ha! More likely I'll win the lottery, tbh), then having the open claim means that then I would get all back pay from when he started work, whereas if the case is closed, I would only get maintenance from when I found out he was working and informed the CSA myself.

The open case with a nil assessment is MY protection as an RP from losing out on arrears. I don't currently need or want the case reassessed, but I DO need it to stay open and active IYSWIM.

Fuck sake!

Here's hoping they split before October then

socks

I dint understand you post at all - she was assessed, dh was assessed, she had .6 of a child, he had 1.4, net effect was her due to pay him. She never paid.

She also committed benefit fraud by claiming for the DC who lived with us, for howhereupon don't know, whereupon at some point they identified a duplicate claim and stopped all tax credits and CB for children living int house, while they investigated.

Eventually they reinstated, backpaid me and made her repay them (apparently our fault?)

In addition she was hostile to contact re the youngest DC - the .4 spent with DH was court ordered against her wishes.

While she wasn't paying her assessed maint, we were constantly accused of being tight, mean, not paying, etc, when in fact the opposite was true.

When the child who lived with us got passed the age where she was no longer entitled to maint - despite being in 4.5k of arrears, we got hit was an amended assessment - which we are paying because I can't be bothered with the argument with the CSA.

Apparently the fact we didn't enforce collection means her arrears dont count.

dont like her for a variety of reasons - her emotional abuse of her children being the main one but there are others.

Personally I think she is lower than low and one day karma will come back and bite her - but that has little to with what I think about how we have ended up paying money to a woman who by the CSAs own calculations is thousands of pounds in assessed arrears.

That to me doesn't seem right - it has also meant the DC concerned is worse off as she is no longer receiving pocket money etc, as we were paying the DC direct - have had to stop as we can't afford both.

We have always paid and cared for all the children in our relationship - as opposed to their mother, who chose to without love, money and affection in order to punish any child who dared to show any loyalty to their dad.

She also committed benefit fraud by claiming for the DC who lived with us, for how long I don't know, whereupon at some point they identified a duplicate claim and stopped all tax credits and CB for children living int house, while they investigated.

I've Reread your post - where did you get the idea she was nil assessed from?? She was assessed to pay net £125 per month. For 5 years she didn't pay a penny, for anything.

If we had enforced collection she would have taken it out on the DC who was resident with her - who was having a hard enough time anyway.

My point on this thread is that the CSA now has us paying a women they are fully aware owes us money - as assessed by them

i didnt say she was nil assesed it was just a random point because ive gone compleatly mad its not your fault ive gone mad so please forgive me as my being bonkers made me sound harsh.

i did pick up from your last indepth post something and it may be worth challenging. but if you informed the csa that 1 dc was living with you they should have told you to contact cb (who would have told you that you had to wait 6 weeks unless she told them befor you) as cb is evidence of a childs residency. if they didnt tell you how you could prove residency then you could have grounds for an appeal.if that makes sense?

another thing that you may find helpfull is the initial child deduction is done befor any other and all deductions are the same i.e you have 1 child and she has 1 child both people get the 1 resident dc deduction they add the over night discount on top of this if they have not done this then again you may be able to get them to look again at the figures.

as to the asking for enforcement it sucks buts thats they way they do it.the csa is just a big bag of shit that sadly is the only option for lots of people but they dont do what they say on the tin.

places colunder on head and goes back to rocking in the corner

if its any consolation i have a very wealthy ex who wouldnt comply with court orders and gave my company to his current gf (company has changed hands everytime he changes gf's) i get £5pw as he gets a army pension he even once rented hisactually my house but ive now got over that NOT house to a woman he wasnt seeing with 4 kids and lived in the annex so he could get the deduction for having resident dc's. his current gf 'pays' him less than £80 a week despite him working over 50 hours pw in a job thats exempt from nmw despite him being paid £85 per day just to take his own child to school(LA funded transport that i had to go to court to change so it wasnt him doing it,he told the la he wasnt his dad).

its madness bloody madness

Ah don't worry .

I can't be bothered to argue with CSA we just pay - it's only for 2 years and at least we get the moral high ground.

I do feel for SC though - we were giving £50 pocket money plus a lot of extras - that's stopped but dc isn't getting pocket money from mum - so loser is SC.

I think this thread shows a one size fits all just doesn't work for such varying and complex circumstances.

(As an aside DH was getting CB - ex went a little mental when DH claimed - as apparently he was taking her money - I thought it was for Benefit of DC - she then decided to claim for SC anyway - it was ages before they identified dup claim it all got sorted in end - but I was a few hundred a month down while they resolved it).

It's not true that the CSA is only used as a last resort by the PWC. I know an NRP who decided that money for his DD should be decided by the CSA because he didn't feel that the mother would ever agree to a reasonable arrangement with him. So he went to the CSA himself for it to be sorted out fairly.

but it is true that most users of the service do so as a last resort.

some nrp's will use it if pwc is being unreasonable some will also use it because they are self employed but have given the company to a gf because they know the courts would have been able to challenge there actions and award accordingly but the csa cannot.

Couthy, I have to say I couldn't disagree more with your comments on how every NRP should get a job any job to pay cs or be assesed at 16 hours minimum wage. Surely you can realise that some may have genuine reasons for being unable to do so, not least because of disability or being a full time carer

As for the proposals, if I'm honest I'm dreading them

The reason I went through the CSA to begin with was to stop any arguments from the ex, by involving them we could both take a step back and things were much easier

I know that if we are made to sort things out between ourselves things will get nasty again (on his side not mine), but if I involve the new agency then things will get nasty because of the additional 20% he has to pay. So it's lose, lose for me

couthy has on many occasions stated every fit abled bodied nrp.

from my perspective being a carer (of the official standered required by ca i.e not just having a young child) apparently these days does not exempt a pwc from job seeking/obtaining (even tho the dwp claim it does) then why should it exempt a nrp?

Being a carer does exempt you for looking for work, it certainly does in my husbands case

Couthy apologies if you have said only fit able nrp, the thread is long and I thought I had read it all but I may have missed it

maytheodds, your XP will only have to pay the 20% if he doesn't pay via direct pay, which will be the default option for payments to be made through the new assessment. I posted yesterday at 15.34 outlining the new system. Hopefully that will be enough to keep things ok with your XP.

Re: carers - I thought universal credit would mean that only those caring for someone on HRC would be exempt from working? Could be wrong.

Thank you optimistic, yes I saw your post which explained things very clearly, I found that very helpful

With regard to my ex even now going through the CSA he goes through cycles of not paying/bring forced to pay/ leaving job/ start cycle again. So I think that even if we originally agreed and went through direct payments we would end up having to use them to enforce payments (which would of course be my fault ) but although I'm not looking forward to it, if it worked in that more nrp would recieve maintenance then it would be worth it, I'm just not sure it would

As things stand at the moment carers are exempt from having to seek work, but I think you're right about universal credit requiring it to be only higher rate care. But there will still be nrp's who are exempt because of this or being disabled and I think the rules absolutely should be different for them

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.

As long as clear guidance is given on how to keep clear records of arrangements in the case of disagreements

4) Fees will not be payable by victims of domestic violence, or by parents who are under 18.

What will these groups be getting instead?

mary

i know dwp rules state that a carer in receipt of ca is exempt from looking for work.but ive seen many posts on mn that says they are still being told to find work. far be its not for me to say they are fibbing.

Sorry, haven't read all the thread but what about NRP's who WANT to pay but the RP refuses saying that they will only go through the CSA.

The CSA haven't taken any money from my Dp for his son for MONTHS. Every month he phones to offer the money and they say they can't take it "just yet" They never give us a reason why.

So Dp phones his ex asking her to come to a private agreement (same amount as what CSA states plus extra for school uniform/dinners/trips) She always refuses saying that she wants to go through the CSA as she thinks she'll get more money.

Will my DP still have to pay 20% in this situation?

The CSA are useless. For both RP & NRP'S. I don't think any of these changes are going to make it any better unfortunately.