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

What solutions are those then NADM?

I must have missed those posts.

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.

But he was! And so did I on his behalf until the CSA sorted out his new levels of payment. And his DC's go without, so our household was and is meeting the essential needs of his DC's as well, out of my minimal income, benefits and the CM payments from my ex. My DD has gone without extras to pay for DSC essentials.

Why are we not allowed to air minority views? Do you have this attitude in all walks of life

The problem with an arbitrary agency like the CSA is that it can only cater for the majority, there's no way that every possible situation can be legislated for what exactly would you suggest, NADM?

If that minority view is that it's OK to not pay for your children then...um, well, of course you can air them.

Just expect to get lots of people disagreeing with you..also it's not relevant on this particular thread.

This thread is asking for views (which will no doubt be ignored) on the changes being made to the CSA, all of which appear to be punishing the children of those families where fair agreement cannot be reached.

Currently the view that it's OK not to pay for your children is deeply, DEEPLY entrenched in society or we wouldn't have the statistics that we do...I think really, that those of us arguing for CM paid EVERY TIME without fail are in the minority.

What solutions are those then NADM?

I must have missed those posts.

That the new system should require a NRP to get "any job" in order to financially contribute.
that the new system should recognise the restrictions placed on RP career and job opportunities due to their RP status, but disregard it the same restrictions on NRP due to NRP status.
That the new system assumes that the NRP is the one avoiding payment, so the cost id using the system should fall to them alone.
That the new system should require RP to approve the childcare and other arrangements of the NRP prior to state benefits being shared.
That state benefits to a RP in recognition of their RP status disregard support provided by a NRP.

what exactly would you suggest, NADM?

That we are all able to share our views, rather than being shouted down because they do not fir with the majority.

This thread is asking for views (which will no doubt be ignored) on the changes being made to the CSA, all of which appear to be punishing the children of those families where fair agreement cannot be reached.

But the views being expressed would punish other families - should we keep quiet about how the suggestions/solutions would affect us because we are in the minority?

To rephrase how would you suggest the Government legislate for all possible scenarios?

"If that minority view is that it's OK to not pay for your children then...um, well, of course you can air them.

Just expect to get lots of people disagreeing with you..also it's not relevant on this particular thread"

No Shirley, that is not an accurate representation. Posters talking about their own situations, which may be in the minority, as in other words basically being told to shut up about their own minority situations.

That the new system should require a NRP to get "any job" in order to financially contribute.

But this already applies to PWC, once the children have reached 7 (is it still 7?) they have to look for a job or take cuts in their benefits.

that the new system should recognise the restrictions placed on RP career and job opportunities due to their RP status, but disregard it the same restrictions on NRP due to NRP status.

But if they're a NRP then presumably the children are not in their day to day care and therefore there isn't the same impact on their career. Unless we're talking shared care again, in which case the rules are different anyway?

That the new system assumes that the NRP is the one avoiding payment, so the cost id using the system should fall to them alone.

If a NRP wants to pay then they just...erm, pay, don't they? I'm not sure what this means TBH

That the new system should require RP to approve the childcare and other arrangements of the NRP prior to state benefits being shared.

I don't agree that this is a way forward.

That state benefits to a RP in recognition of their RP status disregard support provided by a NRP.

This already happens and is necessary in order to prevent families being plunged into financial catastrophe of a NRP not paying for a couple of weeks for example.

To go on another tangent - I think the Gvmt should look into different Child Support Schemes used around the world.

Eg- I'm from Quebec the the system is much different and as both parents have to submit their income and a set percentage is fixed and calculated based upon who has the most disposable income & residence/shared care. Just an idea.

here

I've told no one to shut up.

I have merely said that this thread is about the the changes to the CM which are on the table.

I posted originally on this thread to point out that the majority of children in this country do not receive financial support. Which is a sad fact. However, I was then asked to provide information as to how many of that majority were not being paid because the CSA said they didn't have to.

It's an unpalatable truth, I know that, but arguing against the fact that the figures reflect a real problem with CM, and that problem is that NRP's are not paying, is just bizarre in the extreme.

Never had a consultation thread be this lively before

@NotaDisneyMum

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?

In terms of responding to the consultation, we're going to be restricted (mostly) to answering the actual questions in the consultation document (which are summarised on p41 here). As I've said, the consultation is specifically not about the principle of charging. Given the strength of feeling about charging, we will almost certainly make reference to this issue in a covering note - but within that we will also note that there were other views being expressed.

Do please note that individuals are very welcome to respond to the consultation - so if you have a strong feeling that you wish to ensure is expressed, you might want to consider going down that route. But that's not to say that minority views on this thread will be ignored (far from it).

(Just as an aside, I'm a PWC who has an excellent relationship with the father of my children, so I have personal experience of NRPs being excellent, responsible parents.)

Hope that answers your question.

MNHQ

Allnew- do you have DC's with your partner? If so, why is that ok for you to do, but not for your partner's ex?

Did you not have a drop in the amount you could spend in your existing DC when you had another with your partner? And if you haven't yet, then don't you think that will happen if and when you DO have a child together?

Why is the RP moving on and having more DC's at all relevant to the support your partner gives to HIS DC's? The level of support given to your DC's drops when the NRP moves on and has more DC's with a new partner, dropping the maintenance for their existing DC's, so why is it not automatic that the standard of living in an RP's family drops when THEY choose to move on and have more DC's?

And I believe that maintenance dropping when an NRP has a DC in a new relationship is wrong too. You don't get an increase in your wages if you decide to have a new DC, so why does the NRP's household income after maintenance get an increase? All it means is that the NRP's existing DC get less. And it is often done without a though or care to the NRP's EXISTING DC's.

I fully believe that an NRP should not have further DC's if they can't afford to support their existing ones AT THE SAME LEVEL after that new DC is born. Why should the DC's suffer just because of their NRP's wish to have another DC?

They already suffer emotionally through that, because their NRP has DC's that are with them all the time, why should they also suffer financially?

I have to go now, DC's are about to get back, but will be back later.

Oh, what's the point.

I'm pretty sure the consultation surrounding the charges was a resounding "Fuck NO!" and yet it's going ahead (by the looks of it) anyway.

Shirley - the age at which an RP is expected to find work is now 5yo, with ongoing consultation to lower that to 3yo...

I agree Shirley. They aren't going to take any notice anyway, they didn't on the charging issue.

"Allnew- do you have DC's with your partner? If so, why is that ok for you to do, but not for your partner's ex? "

Yes I have DCs with my partner (had none before). So of course they didn't suffer a drop when I had them!

"I fully believe that an NRP should not have further DC's if they can't afford to support their existing ones AT THE SAME LEVEL after that new DC is born. Why should the DC's suffer just because of their NRP's wish to have another DC?"

The same rationale should apply to RPs though

Shirley

The government have basically said they are going ahead with charging regardless and so they are only interested in the details of applying those charges. So ultimately its about finding a way to make the charging work.

Couthy - you said above that the reduction should only apply to 'bio' children of the NRP, as opposed to SC. Are you backtracking now in your most recent post?

Honestly you cant say someone (either RP or NRP) cant even have any more children. Circumstances change. Unless we are just going to limit every family to 1 child only. That is the only way to ensure that DCs dont suffer from more siblings!

That the new system should require a NRP to get "any job" in order to financially contribute.
But this already applies to PWC, once the children have reached 7 (is it still 7?) they have to look for a job or take cuts in their benefits.

And so does a NRP have their benefits cut if they don't look for a job - and there are clear guidelines as to the types of job that are considered suitable in terms of distance/hours depending on care commitments. But the suggestion on this thread (and elsewhere on MN) is that these requirements are tightened for CM purposes and that the NRP is punished for not taking a job, any job, anywhere, regardless of the requirement to relocate, or work hours that prevent them maintaining contact with their DC's. This proposal will unfairly impact on those DC's who currently have a regular, positive relationship with a NRP who (for whatever reason) is not currently working. Just to be clear, I do recognise that it will benefit those DC's who don't have involved NRP as the RP will financially benefit. But , how can you prioritise one over the other?

that the new system should recognise the restrictions placed on RP career and job opportunities due to their RP status, but disregard it the same restrictions on NRP due to NRP status.
But if they're a NRP then presumably the children are not in their day to day care and therefore there isn't the same impact on their career. Unless we're talking shared care again, in which case the rules are different anyway?

it's not black and white though, is it? There is lots of middle ground.
EOW arrangements (which are rarely considered shared care) restrict NRP from working weekends, as an example.

That the new system assumes that the NRP is the one avoiding payment, so the cost id using the system should fall to them alone.
If a NRP wants to pay then they just...erm, pay, don't they? I'm not sure what this means TBH

What if the RP insists on using the system rather than coming to an agreement, should the NRP be charged for the service and the RP be exempt?

That the new system should require RP to approve the childcare and other arrangements of the NRP prior to state benefits being shared.

I don't agree that this is a way forward.

so we do agree on something!

That state benefits to a RP in recognition of their RP status disregard support provided by a NRP.

This already happens and is necessary in order to prevent families being plunged into financial catastrophe of a NRP not paying for a couple of weeks for example.

So, just in case a NRP doesn't pay, the household receiving the CM receives benefits as well? On that basis, why aren't benefits paid just in case an employer fails to pay wages? The penalty for non-payment of CM is far harsher than that on a non-paying employer.......

I can't see a way that would make charging equitable. Why should my children lose any percentage of the CM they (don't) get?

My ex has refused to pay, refused to make an agreement (don't make me laugh), and continues to evade the bailiffs which are now trying to enforce the court order for the money he owes for the past year.

Why the hell my children should lose 7% of the £40/week (£20 per child which breaks down as £2.85 per child, per day BTW) he SHOULD be paying?

Why? It's not my fault, or their fault that he refuses to pay? It's absolute madness.