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

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.

Exactly, there is nothing that legally requires the RP to pick up their DC, either, though - neither RP or NRP are legally required to do this.

And I DID split CTC and Child Benefit with my ex, until it became apparent that I was still having to pay all costs out of half the money.

He wanted the CTC and Child Benefit, but not to spend on the child.

So I stopped splitting it. He was told that when he would pay for half of his clothes, half of his uniform, half of the cost of his shoes, half of the childcare (I was working at the time), half of school trips, half of after school activities that DS1 wanted to do, then I would start splitting it again.

No way am I paying 100% of the costs of bringing up our DS1 if I only get 50% of the money to do so!

In fact, his new partner was aggrieved that I wouldn't give them half of ALL of my CTC and Child Benefit, despite the fact that 3 other DC's are included on that claim that are nothing to do with them.

They were getting more than they should have from me anyway - I was doing it by splitting the CTC and Child Benefit equally into 4, then halving 1/4 of it. Which ignored the fact that the family element of CTC was originally paid for my eldest child, my DD, and the fact that more Child Benefit was being paid for my DD as the eldest child!

Yet they wanted half of the other children's money too!

You can try to be as fair as you like as an RP, yet you can still be in the wrong!

You can try to be as fair as you like as an RP, yet you can still be in the wrong!

But a lot of RP aren't fair - don't agree to 50% care, don't agree to split the benefits, don't consider that their DC's relationship with the NRP is as important as the one with themselves.

Why is it that the new system should be designed to take into account NRP who do not pout their DC's first but disregard the fact that many RP don't wither?

NotaDisneyMum - if things are so tight that your partner can't afford to support his DC's by taking a NMW job, then maybe moving in together wasn't such a good idea? Support for his existing DC's should be considered as his FIRST priority.

Yes, if things were that tight for both parties that the only assistance the NRP could provide was food bank assistance, then I see no problems with that - he is still TRYING to support his DC's. The issue with that is that the RP themselves could get assistance from the food bank, still doesn't buy the DC's shoes, clothes or school uniform!

I think it's clear NADM that you are seeing this through your own lens and are simply unable or unwilling to see that the majority of children in LP households receive no financial support from the NRP, and that this is WRONG.

That's just plain wrong and I am baffled as to why you are refusing to acknowledge this.

All of this talk about families where everyone is on benefits and it would be awful to have to get a job and pay for the children is just not really that relevant.

The thread is about changes to the CSA and instead of the government putting their efforts into trying to capture those NRPS who aren't paying towards their children they are punishing the PWC and the children. Again.

NADM I usually have a lot of time for you and your views but you are being deliberately inflammatory with your comments about RPs living the life of riley on benefits while proecting the image of NRPs in abject poverty. The insinuation that maintenance funds Sky TV/gym memberships and takeaways as opposed to being used as part of the money spent on the needs of the child(ren) is pretty offensive. I expect that sort of bollocks from 'bitter' NRPs who have a problem supporting their own kids, not from someone who, until this thread, I always viewed as a pretty even, fair-minded individual, with a pretty good insight.

I'm not on benefits, my income far, far exceeds the minimum level of income benefits provides, and yet, I haven't got a penny to my name. I don't indulge in the past times suggested that my maintenance could fund, despite working and earning what would be considered a pretty decent wage. I'm not so closed-minded as to think that someone on benefits could afford the things I couldn't despite earning a decent salary. Maybe you should think about that before you make those sort of statements.

The thing with 50% care is that it is often refused in a court because it's not the NRP that would be providing the care, it would be the NRP's new partner.

To be harsh, access is to see the NRP, not anyone else. If the NRP isn't there due to work, then it's not access, it's trying to lower the maintenance payments, nothing more, nothing less.

NotaDisneyMum - if things are so tight that your partner can't afford to support his DC's by taking a NMW job, then maybe moving in together wasn't such a good idea?

Good grief - more assumptions!

We both had F/T, well paying professions when we moved in together. Sadly, our crystal ball failed to predict that both of us would be made redundant within 9 months of each other a matter of months later. We've both tried out damnedest to find any work we can - and I got lucky first and we are just managing to keep a roof over our heads.

I agree with most of what you've said Couthy, but I can't agree on the access/contact being only for the NRP.

I would have no problem with my children being cared for by my ex's new partner (provided they were in a long term stable relationship [pah! unlikely with him!] and she was kind to them) and would definitely be OK if there were subsequent half sibs.

Contact is about the whole family IMO, which includes grandparents and the whole extended family. I don't have a problem with this at all.

The insinuation that maintenance funds Sky TV/gym memberships and takeaways as opposed to being used as part of the money spent on the needs of the child(ren) is pretty offensive

Yes, it is offensive. It happens. It's happening in my situation. Your point is?

But that isn't what this thread is about nadm.

You complained earlier on the thread about this becoming an excuse to "bash" NRPs (Although I thought you were wrong, bashing non-paying NRPS would be more accurate) and you're doing the very same thing about PWC.

It's most unedifying.

The point is you are being offensive. Clear enough?

I came to the conclusion that if you can't beat them, join them.

Yes, I acknowledge (and did so very early in this thread) that some NRP avoid paying CM, but that is not the only issue.

It is important that all voices are heard by the government - otherwise, the new system will only improve things for those with the loudest voices.

When the 49% access with my ex was agreed, I as the RP was working, he as the NRP was (and still is, after 9 years) unemployed.

This reduced his maintenance down to zero. I then split the CTC & Child Benefit. But was left to pay for EVERYTHING except his food while he was at his dad's house.

The ONLY way I could continue to clothe and support our DS1 was to stop splitting the money.

If it was done automatically by the HMRC/DWP, then just like the computer system for maintenance payments can't take into account whether an assessment is actually being paid or not, in the same way, a computer system can't cope with adjusting the split of CTC and Child Benefit if it is NOT being used to support that child.

How would the HMRC/DWP be able to easily adjust split benefits to take into account what is ACTUALLY being paid for?

There ARE, unfortunately, a LOT of unscrupulous NRP's out there, who wouldn't think twice about taking half the benefits for that child, spending it down the pub or on a hobby, and spending none of it on that child, leaving the RP to fund 100% of the stuff for that DC, with only 50% of the money to do so.

Hang on, in your situation, your OH is not working and pays no maintenance, is that not right? So, how on earth can it be that maintenance in your situation is paying for the Sky TV/Gym membership/takeaways?

The point is you are being offensive.

By sharing my own experience?

How is it any more offensive than referred to as "wife number two" and "wimen (sic) who help defraud innocent children"?

There ARE, unfortunately, a LOT of unscrupulous NRP's out there, who wouldn't think twice about taking half the benefits for that child, spending it down the pub or on a hobby, and spending none of it on that child

.....and there are RP who do that too - greed is not exclusive to NRP.

It's actually the MAJORITY, just to be clear. The majority of NRP's do not pay for their children.

This needs to be addressed.

What was the other stuff you wanted to address? That NRP's who are on benefits and have subsequent children should...what? They don't have to pay now according to you, so what's the beef? Or that "contact" should count as financial support? Or food from foodbanks?

Maybe I, given recent circumstances with my DS1, am more sensitive to this. I for one will NEVER be allowing my DS1 to be left alone with his SM again, irrespective of siblings there.

Long story is that she injured my DS1, refuses to acknowledge that what she did was wrong, and unacceptable to do to a SDC that does not get physically chastised. What she does with her own DC's is not my problem, what she does with my DS1 IS.

Hence my issue with access being to see the NRP. They can see their siblings when they are with the NRP, can't they? They don't need to be left in the care of a SP when the NRP is at work, especially if the RP is a SAHP. Why would you want a SP to be looking after your DC when you are available? And even if the RP IS at work too, why does the SP need to be looking after the DC? That child is the responsibility of the NRP and the RP, not the SP.

When DH's maintenance payments increased, ex decided to give up her job, had more children, cue less spent on the existing 2, no holidays, significant drop in their living standards.

"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?"

I did do this. I would never ever do it again.

But you aren't actually sharing your own experience are you? You are suggesting that an NRP's maintenance is paying for Sky TV/Gym/takeaways, not actually maintaining the child concerned, when your own OH isn't actually paying maintenance at all so therefore cannot be funding these 'luxuries' his ex has in her life. You are simply being offensive for the sake of it, not 'sharing your experience' at all.

Shirley My point is that the solutions being suggested here that address the non-paying NRP are likely to disadvantage many NRP and RP who are in different situations to the majority.

This is a consultation process and I for one don't want to see a solution implemented that sacrifices a minority of children (who may be OK under the current system) in order to benefit the majority under a new system.

I agree couthy, that you are seeing this through your own circumstances. Of course if a SP has been cruel to a child then there is no way I would be happy for my children to be around them.

My point was that if that isn't the case and the contact was on a weekend when the father/mother had to work (for example) or the contact was during the week and the parent wouldn't be in from work in time to collect the children from school, or whatever, I really wouldn't mind. I wouldn't deman for all access to be granted ONLY to the NRP and to him/her alone IYKWIM?

But obviously this is only in the case of everyone being normal and not horrible to the children!

Yes, NotaDisneyMum, I agree that there are greedy unscrupulous RP's too. But the proportion of those I have come across in my time helping people through the maze that is the current CSA, compared to the proportion of unscrupulous NRP's is very different.

The majority of RP's want maintenance to improve their CHILDREN'S lives. The majority of NRP's want to get out of paying maintenance to improve their lives.

I'm NOT saying ALL NRP's, mind you. Just the majority.

Your ex may be great, and pay regularly, and not put conditions on you like that payments will stop if you get into a new relationship, and he always pays on time, and he always pays what he should.

But can't you understand that YOUR ex is in the minority?!