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

So your comment above "So its all the fault of the other posters evil ex who went ti the csa for the legal minimum, oh what a nasty rp, fancy them wanting to make their childs life easier by getting the MINIMUM from the csa"

I assumed you were talking about my post, no?

Money = housed, fed and clothed child NADM. I didn't make them by myself.

No notdisney, you twisted EASIER life and quoted happier, what an odd behaviour to display.

And MrsJR said it would make the child's life easier, not that it would make them happier.

MagicLlama, maybe that is my problem, I am struggling to believe that the 'new improved' CSA is going to be any better than that tbh. It got WORSE, not better, on the changeover from CS1 to CS2. Why wouldn't it get still worse again on the change to CS3?

And if the changeover creates more clerical cases that the computer can't deal with, are they going to increase the staffing levels at CSA Bolton, who are already unable to complete a simple piece of work in the specified timescale, or are they just going to throw masses more cases to them, despite the fact that they can't cope with the ones they've got?

And if money > money required to feed & cloth and entertain child, then happy PWC

Optimist - you have to ask for a variation on the basis of an 'inconsistent lifestyle' abd the fact that he is 'depriving your children if income'. I.e he can feed himself etc, but with no income.

Well for clarification it didn't make their lives EASIER or HAPPIER, so the semantics are actually pointless

Couthy I think thats the key question isnt it really, and the one I would be most interested in the government answering.

How exactly are they going to improve the CSAs performance to justify charging

my client has the children overnight when he is allowed to which is less than 52 nights a year.

I agree Complexity.

Thanks Couthy, I'm currently waiting on another assessment of his income because I think he might be working again, but if that throws up nothing I'll do that next :)

All new - I can see that your partner was paying regularly. But not all do. Your partner is, unfortunately, in the minority.

What does your partner have to fear from the CSA ringing him? Is he not paying what he should be? If he is, then he has nothing to fear from them.

Yes, it IS unfortunate that they have slapped him with arrears to cover a period he has already paid for. But it even states on the CSA website NOT to pay cash, and of you absolutely have to, then get a signed receipt. I can't understand why your partner was so trusting of an ex who cheated on him tbh. Why on earth didn't he take steps to protect himself by paying by Standing Order MARKED as maintenance, or insist on receipts?

"What does your partner have to fear from the CSA ringing him? Is he not paying what he should be? If he is, then he has nothing to fear from them"

Yes he is, but would you like to be harrassed by a government department on a regular basis. Having to supply evidence on a regular basis. Having to take their calls at work. Having lettes asking you to supply this, supply that? For no reason whatsoever?

Couthymow - it was many many years ago when all those precautions were not so well documented. He could not afford any legal advice as he was ejected from his own home and she left him with thousands of debt. He (maybe naively) thought that the documentation he had proving payment would be adequate, but no, the csa ignored that documentation and believed a liar instead.

Interesting you're so determined it was his fault for being naive though. Of course it wouldn't actually be her fault for committed fraud.

couthy what sources are there to support your assertion that the majority of NRP, who are liable to pay CM under the current rules, do not pay regularly?

All new - how is maintenance a) A significant portion of income, and b) Handed to another family?

The maximum portion of income taken from an NRP is 25%, and that is if they are helping to support 3 or more DC's from their first family. If you are looking at this like me, the RP is expected to work even if there will only be the RP's income (if they are still single) going into that house.

In the case of an NRP with a new partner, if we assume both adults working, it is only 1/8 of their household income that is taken to support the children from their first family.

If the NRP's partner chooses to be a SAHM, they can't then complain that maintenance still has to be paid at the same level - they have made a choice based on their finances that this is affordable. If it is NOT affordable, and leaves the NRP's new family in hardship, then they obviously CAN'T afford to have a SAHP.

It REALLY bugs me (having been an NRP's new partner as well as an RP, so can see all sides here btw), is the NRP's new partner saying it's leaving them in hardship because they only have the NRP's income to live on because they are a SAHP. When I became an NRP's new partner, it was part of our decision to move in together that led me to stop being a SAHP and go back to work. I would have had no right to moan about being hard up because of the maintenance he had to pay, but do nothing about it (other than expect maintenance payments to drop, which a lot of NRP's new partners seem to expect). I had to go back to work and leave my OWN children in childcare because that's the only way our household finances would add up.

So, to me, an NRP's new partner can't moan about maintenance leaving them hard up if they are a SAHP, I certainly didn't.

The maintenance was just counted as part of the essential household outgoings, and factored into our decision to move in together. It's common sense.

I don't believe I'm in hardship at all actually . And I'm not a SAHP either .

But that notwithstanding, I consider 20% of my income to be significant

How many years ago? It's been easily searchable on t'internet since my DS2 was tiny. I know because I wanted to be paid cash as I couldn't get a bank account, and wanted to know why my ex was refusing. That was in 2004. And the information was generally known before that, according to certain websites.

I can't currently link to my sources right now, am on my phone, but will do so this afternoon/evening once I am on the laptop. Not trying to be evasive, just out!

All new - if you are working too, then how can it be 20% of your household income?! Surely if you added your partners income and yours together, you would find that it is a lot LESS than 20% of your HOUSEHOLD income?!

See, you're still berating him for it being his fault that a government department believes a liar over written documentation showing he made the payments. Says a lot about your attitude. Always the NRP's fault.

I didn't say anywhere that maintenance is 20% of my household income. I earn way more than DH. His ex can't stand that.

NotaDisneyMum - I can find plenty, when I get on my laptop.

Just because your partner and allnew's partner pay regularly, it doesn't mean that is the norm.

Yet you still want to berate my partner, who does pay regularly. And you think its not a problem that csa resources are wasted on him or similar nrp's. Baffled by this.