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

I've not idea. Cases that are already set up, being paid regularly with no issues should be left well alone imo.

But in reality I think it will be a long way off before any existing cases are impacted. For example the Oct 2012 deadline looks doubtful for new cases

But allnew if there are cases where both parents are happy and the amount is being paid each, surely it makes more sense for the NRP to pay the RP directly into the RPs bank account rather than incur collection & redistrubition charges for the CSA?

I suppose because the pwc not only gets the benefits the nrp will be getting but also cb and presumably housing benefit and extra benefits for having a resident child. The nrp will be living on less than the state deems is required to subsist on if they pay cm, so living in deemed 'poverty' and being unable I would have though, to afford to spend time with the child. Which will be to the detriment to the child.

each month

No job = deprivation of maintenance income for the DC's IMO.

The NRP doesn't have to arrange their work hours around when childcare shuts, doesn't have any LEGAL obligation to take time off to collect a sick child from childcare or school, doesn't have to take two weeks unpaid leave if the DC's get chickenpox, doesn't have to pay for or arrange the childcare, doesn't suffer the same consequences for their career as the RP does.

So why is it not easy to see why some RP's are unable to work, given the fact that the cost of childcare falls solely to them, even if the NRP earns more?

And RP's sitting on benefits for years on end is a thing of the past now. They are expected to work too. Yet are also expected to pick up the full costs of childcare.

"if a pwc doesn't work and doesn't pay it isn't? Because the state provides?"

Isn't the point that PWC on benefits do pay for their children from the benefits they receive? Benefits which are received for a limited amount of time and on a conditional basis? (And in my case, benefits that could have been avoided were it not for the behaviour of my XP, but that's by the by).

I understand why there can only be a limited amount reduced from an NRPs benefits, because they only receive benefits for themselves and not for their children, but it is a common get out for NRPs to avoid work to avoid paying, often living off parents or a new partner in order to do so. Why is no one chasing these NRPs and pushing them into work? Why is "avoiding child maintenance" itself not a criminal offence? The only offence available is being in debt to the CSA, and if you've deliberately made yourself unemployed, or hidden your income, then you are never going to get into that debt in the first place.

"But allnew if there are cases where both parents are happy and the amount is being paid each, surely it makes more sense for the NRP to pay the RP directly into the RPs bank account rather than incur collection & redistrubition charges for the CSA?"

I guess though that for a great many of the compliant cases, it didn't start all happy and jolly but a lot of time and tears have been spent eventually getting to that state. A poster above explained such a case. Why rake it all up again.

Well said Couthy.

"The NRP doesn't have to arrange their work hours around when childcare shuts"

You're making big assumptions about access arrangements.

shirley because the benefits that the RP receives accounts for the DCs, whereas the benefits that the RP receives doesn't, even when they have as much as 50% care.

Even when a NRP is paying CM, the RP will receive benefits at a rate that does not account for the contribution made towards the DCs. Given how little public money there is available, it seems madness that one household can be suffering poverty to support a second which is also receiving benefits at the same rate as if there was no CM being paid.

Because it saves money which is what this is all about no matter how else they dress it up.

The CSA has savings targets to make, and they will be reached by some cases not using them, and by charging for the service.

So it's ok to assume that the RP lives off less than the poverty level? The reasoning behind the below inflation 'rises' (so a real-terms cut) in CTC took into account the fact that Lone Parents 'will' be getting at least £5 a week in maintenance.

And the NRP doesn't HAVE to live below the poverty level - they could, maybe, get a job. Doesn't matter if it's cleaning toilets, if they are doing it to provide support for their DC.

Yes, I know, jobs aren't that easy to come by, but honestly, an NRP doesn't have half the restrictions on job searches that an RP does. Yet more often than not, in the many cases I have helped with, it is the RP who is working and the NRP that is either working cash in hand or not working at all.

AND the NRP in that situation, living below the poverty level, can appeal to have even the minimum £5 payment stopped. And are frequently successful. Leaving their DC with an NRP who is not only out of work and often not willing to take A job, any job to support his DC's, but begrudges them even £5 a week. Which is less than 10% of their income.

And that (less than) 10% is the sane whether that unemployed NRP has one child or ten children to support.

couthy Where is it written that a NRP has no legal obligation to collect a sick child from school?
Even in the minority of cases where residency is awarded by the family court, there is no exemption from parental responsibility.

I disagree with your fundamental principle that financial support by the NRP is more important than emotional support and contact.

"I disagree with your fundamental principle that financial support by the NRP is more important than emotional support and contact."

Where did Couthy say that? I have never seen Couthy do anything, on this thread or any other, other than argue voraciously in favour of a fair split in contact.

Surely if there is a shared care agreement in place then CM is no longer an issue?

If both parents have equal care of the children then both parents ARE paying, by default, and it is my understanding that the CSA take this into account and will not place payment orders in the cases of shared care unless (and I'm not sure about this, I don't think this happens) there is a large disparity in income?

CM is taken out of benefit calculations because too many NRPs don't bloody pay and cannot be relied on to get that money to the PWC on a regular basis.

The point is, if I were on benefits, was the PWC I would get additional benefits to help; this doesn't then mean that the father of my children should be exempt from paying towards the financial support of the children. I'm sorry, it just doesn't. It's morally repugnant.

Marking place to read properly and respond later.

"I disagree with your fundamental principle that financial support by the NRP is more important than emotional support and contact."

I don't think anyone has said any such thing, although TBH, it's all well and good to see your child and give it a cuddle, but if the child is hungry because there isn't enough food in the house because that parent isn't paying any CM then that just seems a bit lacking in reality.

NotaDisneyMum, I have already explained why that happens, but I'll explain again.

If there is an active assessment, irrespective of whether that is being paid or not, it used to be the case that benefits were reduced accordingly.

This left a LOT of RP's and their children in severe hardship.

The current computer system cannot distinguish between an assessment where regular payments are being made, an one where there is an active assessment but payments are not being made.

Successive Governments have decided that the computer system and software needed that COULD take this difference into account would be too expensive and difficult to run.

Therefore, it was, after a cost benefit analysis, decided that it would cost the State LESS to stop taking maintenance into account for the purpose of benefit payments than it would to design and run software that COULD distinguish without leaving some RP's and their DC's in hardship.

As far as I am aware, the NEW IT systems will still be unable to cope with distinguishing between assessments that ARE being paid regularly, and assessments that are being ignored by the NRP, meaning that that part is unlikely to change.

Because it is more cost effective to ignore the maintenance paid when it comes to payment of benefits that it is to design software that can cope with the two types of cases.

As it would also mean changing IT systems for all other benefits too!

I believe that in the event of a fair split in contact, CTC and Child benefit should also be split to reflect that. I also believe that unless there is a significant disparity in income, in the case of shared care, maintenance should be reduced by the percentage of shared care, reducing to nothing in the event of 50-50 shared care.

However, that being the case, I would expect each parent to ALSO be 50% responsible for ALL the costs involved in that child's upbringing.

Including childcare costs. And if both PARENTS are in work in any given day, the childcare should fall to an approved, paid for childcare NOT the RP's new partner OR the NRP's new partner.

Irrespective of whether the RP's new partner or the NRP's new partner are SAHP's, they are not that child's parent. I would not expect my child to be left with a SP if both I and my ex were at work - I would expect my child to be in paid for, registered childcare as neither parent is at home to look after them.

And THAT is where a lot of it falls down - an awful lot of NRP's in new relationships expect that if THEIR partner is a SAHP, then why should they help pay for childcare, there's someone at home to look after them. Which ignores the fact that in most RP's eyes, the child is the responsibility of its PARENTS to look after.

Agree with everything Shirley is saying.

The fact that 3/5 children get nothing from the NRP speaks volumes. That doesn't include the ones who get min £5 as the NRP is on benefits.

So the fact is the majority of NRPs pay nothing and its not down to being on benefits. If it were they would be included in the 2/5 who are getting paid even if its £5 a week or less if its split several ways.

Child support evasion is a huge problem.

Posters on here who's DP/DHs do pay are in the minority. I don't know why people are so blinded by their own situations that they can't see this.

The real issue is the majority of NRPs don't pay for their childrens upkeep at all. that is what should be being dealt with but it won't be as its too hard because its so bloody easy for NRPs to get away with.

Much easier for the gov to make life harder for the PWC.

NotaDisneyMum - it isn't written that they DO have a legal obligation to pick up sick DC's etc.

They CAN do so, but a hell of a lot refuse. And no-one can MAKE them.

If both you as the Rp, and your DC's NRP are at work, and you both get a call asking for a sick child to be picked up, if the NRP refuses, no-one can LEGALLY make them pick the sick child up. Leaving the RP with two choices - leave work to pick up the sick child, or leave the sick child at school/in childcare.

Doesn't take a genius to work out that it is the RP who HAS to leave work, making themselves look flakey to their employer, every time, if the NRP refuses to leave work.

There is NOTHING that can be legally done about that.

Morally, it's repugnant. Legally, the NRP can refuse and there's fuck all the RP can do.

Posters on here who's DP/DHs do pay are in the minority. I don't know why people are so blinded by their own situations that they can't see this

Sorry that sounded rude and it wasn't meant to.

Financial support is important. So is emotional support, and decent access.

I had a 49-51 split in care with DS1's dad until very recently. No maintenance was due. That has currently changed to roughly 8 hours a week, or less, through EX's choice. Because his new partner hurt my DS1.

My other two Ex's, well, DD's father didn't see her for 12 years, his choice. He now has her for about 4 weeks a year, due to the 600 mile distance involved.

DS2 & 3's dad? He has contact in my house two evenings a week (sometimes 3), but that will stop when DS3 turns two, he will have to make arrangements outside my house. He has DS3 for 8 hours, twice a fortnight, during the day.

He takes 8yo DS2 overnight for one night a fortnight. He has 18mo DS3 overnight for just one night every 8 weeks.

I have offered him every other weekend, Friday through to Monday, a midweek overnight with DS2, and half of all school holidays. If he chooses not to take the amount I am offering, there is little that I can do.

I actually lost a job when DS2 was littler, and I wasn't with his father. He got CP (the older two that weren't with the same dad had already had CP before DS2 was born).

He was seriously ill with it, in and out of hospital (complications), and his father refused point blank to even take one day of the two weeks it went on for off work.

On consulting with a solicitor after being threatened with losing my job (Small shop, I was the ONLY employee, and ran the shop 4 days a week), I was horrified to be told that while MORALLY DS2's dad should have shared the time off work equally, LEGALLY there was no way to make him.

A NRP who has been assessed as being able to afford the minimum £5 per week payment from benefits, but who has more than 52 nights a year contact with their DC's, is subject to an adjustment that reduces that payment to zero - in recognition of the fact that they incur costs associated with the DC. Which leads to no food on the table at the RP house (or, no gym membership/Sky TV or takeaway dinners, at the very least).

If things are so financially tight for the RP that they cannot put food on the table, then would they consider contributions from the NRP towards the household other than financial? When a NRP is eligible for Foodbank assistance, for instance, should a RP accept groceries or similar from the NRP for their own household - in order to feed the DC's?

If the RP has the option of increased hours, or promotion, in their own job, which they are unable to accept due to the limitations that being the RP places on them - would the RP accept the NRP having more contact, to facilitate increasing their household income, to put food on the table for the DC's?

Of course, that NRP could go and get one of these easily obtainable NMW jobs, in order to financially contribute more to the RP household - which will undoubtedly lead to changes in the contact arrangement between NRP and child, in order to accommodate the NRP working hours, commuting time etc. It will, in some cases, such as my own, lead to a significant reduction in the NRP household income through lost benefits, additional commuting and childcare costs (for any resident DC's) to the point where the NRP family home is at risk.
That has a further impact on the NR DC's, who consider their NRP home; having spent (up until that point) a significant amount of time there as part of the family.