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

Right now, my Ex-P and I have an 'amicable' agreement in place for maintenance, £15 a week OVER what the CSA sets out as his payment.

However, if I get into a new relationship, he will stop paying. He has told me this. So it will only be amicable for as long as I stay single. If I dare to even go on a date, he will start withholding maintenance.

What then is my option? Currently it would be to go back to the CSA. If they start charging, why would I bother losing 7% of what is already not very much?!

He is already LAUGHING in my face, telling me that he can't wait till the CSA start charging, because then my only choice is to either stay single or lose money that is the DC's...

Yeah, such a great idea, give emotional and financial abusers another way to control our lives even after we have left them.

couthy, why do we so often end up on the same threads? no longer married to the knob...

MrsJR, we must just be pulled in by the same thread titles. Either that it you're stalking me...

The CSA didn't care about dv (documented) and the CSA itself laughed in my face so I pretty much doubt the new system will be any different.

It's nice the government want to give more powers of abuse to abusive nrp's and give the pwc the privilege of paying for it. I really do love this country

Why don't the government tackle the nrp's who don't pay? or is it just easier for them to penalise the pwc and dc.

I'm so not bitter at all and would tell pwc to run like the wind from these agencies.

Thank god, have been apart for nearly 15 months now. So much happier, even when he is being a bawbag.

Well, my DP and his ex have a very amicable relationship and a private maintenance agreement. Obviously this is much more desirable than animosity and resorting to third parties to sort out their finances.

However, I think this works just because of the nature of their break-up, BOTH of their continuing commitments to the wellbeing of their child, and the type of people they BOTH are. I don't think this type of co-operative decision-making, centred on a genuine desire to do what is fair for the child, can be created by the government through financial incentives. It just seems highly unlikely that you can incentivise people into behaviour like that. Especially given how many splits are acrimonious and how explosive an issue money can be, particularly in the current economy.

It seems to me that what will end up happening is that people will end up playing the system, the parent (or parents) who is/are being unreasonable will perhaps lodge unfounded accusations of domestic violence to get out of paying charges, or NRPs will make private offers that are enough to be lower than what they would pay through CSA, but which have to be accepted because going through CSA would only incur further charges for the person on the receiving end.

And the ones really losing out are the children.

I can't think of any way in which charging people for this service could improve things. So it's disappointing to read that it's definitely happening anyway.

Maybe I am underestimating what can be achieved through counselling and mediation...I'd be interested to hear from anyone who thinks these services are as effective as the government obviously thinks they should be.

we have been completely shafted by the CSA, after having assessments carried out, DHs ex was due to pay us, we never enforced collection (pressure from youngest SC), so she built up substantial arrears and we built up substantial debt maintaing all children (non resident SC was bought a lot of "stuff" and given pocket money, mo phone etc, regardless of mother not paying maint for resident SC).

Fast forward to resident SC not being old enough for mother to be paying us and we have been whacked with a new CSA claim for youngest.

Apparently the arrears dont count because we never asked them to collect, so we are now paying money through CSA to someone who owes us money as assessed by CSA.

This is because there was a "voluntary arrangement", no-one told us.

Actually personally in theory I do not object to the charges aslong as

1. the charges are only incurred at the point of maintenance changing hands 2) the CSA or whatever they end up being called actually manage to do a better job than they currently are.

Id like to think the ex would rather pay maintenance, instead of maintenance plus 20% which hopefully will mean he wont prat around.

However in the event that he doesnt, I would rather have maintenance less 7% than no maintenance at all.

I am also quite positive about the calculations being linked to HMRC earnings and automatically reviewed annually.

Oh great so just because my ex will not pay a penny towards his daughter i will be either made to pay to get the money or get no money at all. How is that fair on my child?

I agree with the NRP being charged 20% extra if he doesnt pay. Hopefully that will encourage more parents to pay however i feel that it will just encourage more NRP to quit working.

So I don't have my ex partners address or phone number, I havent seen or heard from him in 5 years, I don't know how much he earns, have now way of contacting him and it took the CSA 5 years to get him to start paying, they spent a lot of time and effort with court action, sheriffs officers and a deductions of earnings order (after they eventually managed to track him down). Maintenance is finally being paid regularly for our nearly seven year old dd after a lot of hard work and expensive legal action from the CSA. They're not perfect but there is no way we would have had any maintenance without them.

So if my case is now cancelled will they pass on his contact details and information about his income in order for us to try to arrange maintenance between ourselves? I suspect that they will be unable to do this due to data protection. So assuming they can't supply me with the information to sort it out ourselves I will have no choice but to go onto the new scheme. Now if I'm reading the information right it seems to suggest that they will have got rid of all the information they had already gathered and will then have to go through the whole process again, and then go through all the time and expense of going through all the legal action (including threats of prison) again. This is a huge waste of time and money for an arrangement that is working.

It's not even the application fee or even the collection charge (which I think he should be paying for alone, as he is the one who will not cooperate and support his child voluntarily) that bothers me most but the fact that 5 years work of hassle will have to start all over again. In cases where it is obvious from past history that the nrp is unlikely to pay and legal action may have to start all over again then there should be the option to keep the deduction from earnings or other action at the same stage without having to start from scratch again even if that meant you had to start paying the charges.

Seriously dreading this.

So, MagicLlama, if you were currently receiving just £5 a week, as your ex was on benefits, would you be happy with losing 7% of that? It's a derisory enough amount as it is, without losing 7%.

Ok, that may only be 35p, but that would leave you with just £4.65 to support your child.

And you're HAPPY with that?!

Dear DWP,
A modest proposal:
I think I've come up with the only workable solution to this one. Midwife gets both parents to sign legally binding contract that should they split they will come to a direct agreement or never bother to ask for any payment before either is allowed to pick up pfb.
Good chance that mother will be so dazed and out of it that she will sign anything that is put before her and father will be so shell-shocked by the birth that he will not read the small print. And collectively they will be in first loved-up baby moments to think they will ever need to resort to CSA or its successor.
And as for those feckless types who just get pregnant to get benefits, well they don't count so let the Daily Fail at them teeth barred and their DCs starve on the streets.
Yes this is a tax on parents who for whatever reason don't stay together for the kids and more importantly a tax on the DCs so that they have a reminder of how badly their parents have behaved in not staying together for the sake of the children.
And won't the tories be happy when they can say that the CSA bill have gone down.

And as I have said about a thousand times on this subject, instead of penalising the RESIDENT parent, who frequently has worse job and/or career prospects, and currently bears the full costs of childcare, try penalising those particular scumbag NRP's that either don't pay, or use payment as a method of control.

And BTW - how can any RP use the 'threat' of going to the CSA against an ex? Surely they are just pointing out when NOT paid the correct amount or on time or at all (as in 3/5 of cases, no maintenance is received), and that if the NRP does not step up and be financially responsible for their child, they will have no choice but to go through the CSA?

As I keep saying, if a MINIMUM amount of maintenance was taken based on a 24 hr NMW basic at ALL times, even when unemployed, it would be a damn good incentive for NRP's to take A job, ANY job in order not to get further into debt. Sod this stupid £5 a week shit. And if they don't get a job? Bailiffs. If they STILL don't get a job? Community Service. If they STILL don't get a fucking job? Prison.

I think it is criminal how British Society allows NRP's to evade paying for their DC's, with no real consequences. The people who suffer? The children.

How is charging RP's going to make the NRP's pay? What will happen if they STILL don't pay? Will the new legislation make use of the powers THAT ARE ALREADY ON THE STATUTE BOOKS but are practically never used? Or will it be much of a muchness, still crap, but now the RP is having to pay for the payments they DO receive.

Will the RP have to pay the annual fee every year even if they only get one £5 payment in that year? What will happen if they get NO payments that year, despite an active assessment?

What will happen with the cases that are currently clerical and dealt with by the sorry mess that pass as CSA Bolton? If the cases are too complex for the current (and sometimes previous too) computer system, has the new computer system been designed to cope with these, or will clerical cases continue to receive an even worse 'service' than other CSA cases?

What will happen in the event of an NRP being Self-Employed and hiding earnings under their partner's name? Will there be any change to that? Because that is one of the BIGGEST downfalls with the current system. There are even websites TEACHING NRP's how to do this. (I have done an AWFUL lot of research, for personal reasons, into this). How will you ensure an NRP is not depriving their DC of income by doing this under the new system?

How do you define DV? Does it include financial or emotional abuse, or only physical and sexual?

If you left a relationship because of financial and emotional abuse, it is now going to be aided in continuing long after a split because the payment of maintenance will be dependant on the goodwill of your financially and emotionally abusive ex partner. You are blackmailed into doing whatever the NRP wants, as if you don't, you will be losing 7% a week of your DC's maintenance, AND you have to pay to lose that?!

I'm sure I can think of more, given time.

My view for what it's worth,

There are many reasons for seperated parents ending up using the CSA, it's seems absolutely stupid to think you are helping a child by incurring additional changes on the maintenance that should be going to support the children.

Instead of trying to punish parents for not being able to agree I think the govenment should be trying to support, where possible, both parents the RP and NRP to have as much help with raising the child/children. Therefore if the govenment was serious about wanting parents to make NRP feel like a responsible parent then maybe think about tax insentive for both both working parents RP and NRP. Thereby, seperated parents that are working together for the benifit of their children are rewarded. And in cases where the parents can't for whatever reason work out child maintenance leave the NRP paying the current same tax, but leave the insentive of "if you can sort out maintenance/support on your own the govenment will reward you by increasing the income of the NRP via changing the level of tax they pay."

Thereby helping with ensuring with expenses such as travel expenses to see the child, helping to afford a house with additional bedrooms for overnight contact. And just like the maintenace given to the RP it's for the NRP to see fit how this additional income (even if it isn't that much) should be spent.

And hopefully leaving children and the RP who's other partner is simply hiding from the CSA unaffected and more importantly not penalised by such changes.

Sorry that last line should read, "And hopefully leaving children and the RP, who's other parent is simply hiding from the CSA, unaffected and more importantly not penalised by such changes."

dwp, you really have to sort out the self employed loophole where wife number two gets all the income to prevent family one frim getting a penny, shame these wimen who help defraud innocent children.

I am STILL puzzled how 'threatening' to go to the CSA as an RP can be seen as controlling?!

If you as an NRP are paying the amount of maintenance that the CSA says is the minimum you should pay, then what is the problem with going through the CSA?

Surely in those cases, it is more often than not (IMextensiveE), the NRP controlling the situation, hence the NEED for the RP to go to the CSA? Not paying on time, not paying the correct amount, not being honest with your ex about your income, hiding your income, not paying at all, getting your boss to lie about your income, dropping your hours for the assessment period only then going back to normal after the assessment is complete, becoming a SAHP with a new partner in order to deprive your existing DC's of maintenance, threatening violence if maintenance is sought, staying unemployed for long periods of time, stating that maintenance payments will cease if the RP gets into a new relationship, these are just some of the various reasons I have had to help RP's claim through the CSA for maintenance.

I don't see how ANY of those reasons could be seen as controlling.

Yes, there IS the situation the PP mentioned, about the RP wanting more money, so going to the CSA. But even that wasn't controlling, just STUPID of that particular RP. Even if it could have been SEEN as controlling - it wasn't ever going to make the situation any worse for that NRP, because they now have to pay LESS money.

I actually think that charging the NRP an extra 20% will actually exacerbate that situation in those sort of cases - NRP cheats and relationship ends. RP, out for revenge, realises that NRP will have 20% added to their maintenance bill. Figures the revenge is well worth the 7% loss...

DURR!

Right now, what could possibly be 'in it' for an RP to go to the CSA, other than possibly getting some of the maintenance those DC's need to help support them?

Working on a figure of £60 a week for two DC's (easily possible, ex-p is meant to pay £55 for two on a £16.8k income).

NRP currently pays £60/wk. RP, still feeling hurt over an affair, looks at the figures and thinks hmmmm, under the new system, NRP has to pay £72.00/wk, and I will still get £55.80. Sounds like a good way to hurt him...

I am NOT advocating that AT ALL BTW, it's just that I can see that happening in future in some cases.

Right now, though, I can't see how it would work as a revenge tactic. Either the NRP is currently paying MORE than CSA min, and RP going to the CSA will lower the payments, or NRP is being a twat and NOT paying the CSA min, and yes, RP going to the CSA will raise the payments, but only because they weren't paying what they should be...

Way one, not controlling but stupid, way two, not controlling but necessary.

So if currently due to free at access CSA, the only reasons for an RP going to the CSA for maintenance instead of private agreement are either stupidity or necessity, why change the only bit of the CSA THAT WASN'T ACTUALLY BROKEN?!!

Oh, still necessity if using the CSA because of abuse or non payment.

And possibly to stop an NRP from controlling them if conditions are put on the payment of maintenance. So I guess self-protection could count as a third reason.

So we have 3 main reasons RP's use the CSA : Stupidity/Greed, Necessity and Self-protection. Any of those truly controlling?

And please answer about how long it will take to reassess these cases, considering the complete shitstorm that happened on the changeover from CS1 to CS2, some of those cases are STILL clerical over 10 years later, because the 'computer says no'. If that is the case again, you could have someone whose case has been on CS1 for 9 years, has only recently been finally reassessed on CS2, and then has to be assessed AGAIN. All the while payments are not being collected for the RP, and debts are building up for the NRP.

Will there still be the option of Maintenance direct, where the CSA assess the maintenance due, but they payments are dealt with between the RP and NRP? Will that also be charged for? If so, will it 'just' be the annual fee, or will it be 7% of every payment too? Or will that service be free? Will it still be offered at all?

And in cases like SarahPlane's, why in the name of HELL can't you carry on with the current assessment?!

MNHQ I appreciate that you wanted all answers in one place, but this thread has become a NRP bashing thread and any alternative views are being dissected and dismissed

Is there any chance of a thread so those of us who have a less polarised view can express their POV?

My ex isn't any of the things that NRP's have been made out to be here; but as a victim of DA and a current CSA client, (and a second 'wife' who in the opinion of some is undoubtedly stealing food from the mouths of my DSC) my views are equally valid.
Will the MNHQ summary of this thread as a response to the consultation reflect the views of those who have ranted shouted the loudest?

A Client I saw this week who earns 300pounds per week currently pays

100 per week rent.(cheapest available in the area)
80 per week CM.( paid via CSA)
20 per week Council Tax.
25 per week gas, elec, water.
50 per week for petrol, car insurance etc (needs car for work & to collect DC)
40 per week food ( DC given 1 meal a day because he collects them from school)

He's trying to save for birthdays & xmas but hasn't managed to do so yet, in fact he's debts are mounting.

He has nothing more to give

This is not an isolated case, i see many NRP's who are at financial bursting point, he can't get any tax credits or HB, no any financial help whatsoever.

When I explained the coming CM changes he broke down and was inconsolable. (he asked I didn't want to volunteer this)

The reason I'm awake at stupid o'clock is I'm seriously worried about this man, he's at serious risk right now and as I said he's not an isolated case.