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

Equally I'm not clear on why an nrp should have to pay an extra 20% in the situation that the pwc may prefer to use the csa rather than have an agreement. In this case, if the nrp is wiling to reach an agreement but the pwc wants to use the csa, then the nrp definitely shouldn't be charged. And this does happen. DH's ex absolutely insisted on using the csa, for no reason whatsoever other than a control mechanism. The amount she received actually dropped.

Yes allnew makes a very good point.

It sucks for both sides of the equation. It's just a tax on separated families really.

Which comes as no surprise from this government.

I would have thought by the very nature of a separation involving children, it's really quite unusual that the parents would be able to come to an agreement when in reality they probably hate eachother.

And all this talk of mediation to help parents come to an agreement. What if they need mediation for each and every case - doubt this would work in practice as there wouldn't possibly be enough to go around.

People will end up coming to agreements that mean the DC lose out, to avoid the charges.

I get less than half of what i should but the CSA have been useless so it was agree that or forget it altogether.. This will be how lots of people go about it if these changes come in and the ones who really miss out are....

THE CHILDREN

a) Please can someone from the government explain how the RP receiving only £77.50 of every £100 the NRP pays in maintenance can, in any way, be described as "Supporting Separated Families"?

b) If the Child Maintenance Service is as atrociously poor as the CSAv1, CSAv2 and CMEC have been at ensuring NRPs pay child maintenance, can we claim these pernicious charges back?

c) Given that the IT systems supporting CSA "Old Rules" and CSA "New Rules" have none of them been fit for purpose, what assurances have been sought to ensure that it will be third time lucky? And how much are these IT systems going to cost? And how much has the company that it will be out-sourced to donated to Tory Party funds?

Snorbs, isnt nrp paying 120 and the child getting 77.50

I can see nrp and their partner who have contact getting tight, buying cheaper gifts for the kid than before and as rp getting less too, kid will double loose out, its taxation on vulnerable kids.

@MrsJREwing

are you sending this link to government or is there a link where to send thoughts for the consultation?

We will try to collate thoughts from this thread and send them on, but if you want to respond directly, details of how to do so are on this page

mrsJ please, please, please stop judging all NRP on the basis of your own negative experience

The value of gifts given to DCs by their NRP should be the least of the RP's concerns - the emphasis should be on the quality of the DCs relationship with their Parent and Stepparents, surely?

If DCs are receiving lower value gifts then it's fair to assume that most of them have a roof over their head, food on the table and most importantly, love anything else is a bonus

ummm, notdisney, you dont know my experience, stop the person stuff please.

Will the collaborative arrangements result in a legally binding agreement, a consent order?

The police are going to receive a lot of calls, reporting NRPs for domestic abuse.

Yes indeed littlefrieda.

Surely it should be possible to implement the charge on the parent whom makes use of the CSA necessary?
So, if a NRP offers to pay but the RP insists, then the RP should pay, and similarly if the NRP refuses, then they are the one that foots the bill? It takes the burden off taxpayers, at least.

In cases of DV, the victim shouldn't incur the charge.

As a point of interest, do all the agencies listed have the resources to provide evidence to the CSA of a historical DV report?

It's surely going to be a logistical nightmare to manage all that though. All that "he says", "she says". How are they ever going to work out who's telling the truth without doing a detailed investigation into each and every case where a parent says the other isn't co-operating? It's hundreds if thousands of cases isn't it!

I think it states on page 21 that the RP will not have total control of the payment method if the NRP offers to pay.

Consequently, we will offer the option of Direct Pay to most non-resident parents
unless there is good reason to doubt whether the non-resident parent will pay.
Unlike at present, the parent with care will not be able to veto the right of the
non-resident parent to opt to pay through Direct Pay. This will tend to limit the
ability of one parent to use the collection service as a means of control or revenge
against the other.

Maybe i have read this part wrong?

I think you read it right, but I still don't see how they are practically going to apply that. What sort of proof are they going to be able to get that one parent is telling the truth and the other isn't? And these sorts of cases aren't going to be isolated. Most patents applying just won't ever agree with one another

'Is our ?self declared? approach, guarantee of no contact with ex-partners and exemption from the upfront charge sufficiently inclusive to ensure that there are no barriers to victims of domestic violence?'

No of course it's not. According to the British Crime Survey (table 2.11, p54) only 39% of DV is reported to the police. OK you have named a lot of other agencies as well as the police but still, DV is a massively under-reported crime. This is from the Women's Aid website:

Domestic violence is still largely a hidden crime: those who have experienced abuse from a partner or ex-partner will often try to keep it from families, friends, or authorities.

<span class="italic">They may be ashamed of what has happened</span>
<span class="italic">They may feel they were to some extent to blame</span>
<span class="italic">They may love their partner and not want him to be criticised or punished for what he did</span>
<span class="italic">They may think it was a one-off event and won?t happen again</span>
<span class="italic">They may be frightened that if they tell anyone about it, their partner will find out and they will be in danger of further and perhaps more severe violence from him.</span>

For all these reasons, and others, victims of abuse are likely to experience repeated attacks before they report the abuse to anyone ? and statistics can only be based on known data. On average, 35 assaults happen before the police are called. (Jaffe 1982)*

What does 'self declared' mean? Are you saying it's OK for affected women to lie and 'declare' that they have reported the DV they have suffered, when actually they have never reported it? What a horrible position to put people in.

How are you going to 'guarantee no contact with ex partners'?

These changes will lead to a lot of vulnerable women and children being left worse off.

they're open to suggestions on how charging could work, but not on whether it will be introduced.

It's a bit like asking us how the kittens should die, not whether they should be killed. How can I have an opinion on such a dreadful idea?

I don't give many of these out but here, DWP, have a

I think that will be via the pathways service that everyone, NRP and RP will have to go through. Basically a phone call to each party to verify what each side want to do. If i read it right, You will also have the option to use a slightly different method of collection service which has no charges if you dont want contact with the EX but can agree to direct payment between yourselves via the pathway call. A sort of middle man payment method which i thought was good option if it works!

Will the NRP be informed if the RP has 'self-declared' as having reported DV?

In my case, the fallout of that is almost as bad as the idea of trying to come to an agreement between ourselves!

NADM Its all on page 34/35 if you scroll down. I got confused reading that bit as it seems to say you get fast tracked through the gateway service with no charges but then waffles and states a load of agencies that you must have reported violence to
It doesnt matter if they were never charged or found guilty of any incident. So its not good for people who didnt report incidents like lots of women dont but also not so good for others being accused who have no way of defending themselves against false accusation.

Not sure what this is all about below, other than to put women off claiming the DV exemption if they think they will have to dig up the past so it can be properly investigated.

We will offer applicants who identify themselves as a victim of domestic violence
a referral to either an appropriate voluntary sector support service for advice or
to the appropriate police service so that the incident can be properly investigated.

Not sure if thats for ongoing violence or previous violence.

Maintenance Direct (where the CSA calculates the maintenance payable but the NRP pays the PWC directly) is already available. I actually was happy to do it that way and said so when I made my claim, but for some reason it still ended up going via the CSA - perhaps XP preferred it that way.

NADM, that makes sense on paper but it still doesn't really cover all eventualities - my XP did offer me maintenance but there were two issues - a) I had no idea how much he earned so I had no idea if what he was offering was a fair percentage of his income (I got 50% more than what he offered, so obviously it wasn't) and b) knowing how he is, I knew that he would be unlikely to not pay something officially sanctioned like the CSA, but was very likely indeed to reduce, delay or avoid payments to me with no other agency involved. Only arrears amassed when using the CSA can be collected, so I involved them immediately for both the reasons I mention.

The dv bit sounds like its there for effect, an arse save legally, that in reality they will make it very difficult to claim on the dv part and prove past claims made against the ex, so they can charge those who experienced dv, and tell the press they dont charge dv victims.

mishymashy that's interesting. So is exemption from the fee contingent upon accepting the 'offer' of a referral? Are they saying that if you haven't previously reported, you must report now or cough up the fee?

Thats exactly what i wondered when i read it. I have re read it several times and i am still none the wiser. I was hoping someone else could work out what it is trying to say because my interpretation was the same as yours!

Reading this bit below sounds as though you have to satisfy the self declaration to qualify. WTF is the self declaration! It must mean that you have previously reported

A parent who identifies themselves as being a victim of domestic violence, and has
satisfied the self-declaration process outlined below, will be fast tracked through
the Gateway conversation.