MNHQ here: Tell us what you think about the Child Maintenance Service

[BojanaMumsnet]

Hello

The House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee has launched an inquiry into the Child Maintenance Service (CMS) and its effectiveness in ensuring regular payments for children and will consider recommendations to improve the service overall.

The Committee is inviting submissions addressing the following points:

• How well is the CMS performing for children and parents? How could it be improved?

• What problems do parents face – both for the parent with care and the non-resident parent?

• Are levels of child maintenance set correctly?

• What powers does the CMS have and how effectively are they used? How effective is enforcement action?

• What will happen to CSA arrears or unresolved cases when parents move to the new CMS?

• How might the CMS deal with any weaknesses or loopholes in the old CSA system?

• Are there any opportunities for Government departments to work together to ensure regular payment?

• Is there any international evidence on ways of ensuring parents regularly contribute to their children’s maintenance payments?

Please share your thoughts and experiences below, or if you prefer, you can respond directly to the Committee via this link.

Please note that the deadline for submissions is Monday 5 September 2016.

Thanks
MNHQ

NRP do not always have higher living costs. The "average" NRP sees their child 3 days a fortnight (1 weekend plus a weeknight). They don't have to rent near school (which raises house prices/rent) and can get away with having children share a room as they don't have much stuff stored there.

The initial cost after a split might be high- for example the need for a month's rent plus guarantee in advance etc but the RP often has to move too and if RP works part time then they can't always get more hours and more childcare. If NRP has the children only at weekends then they normally pay zero childcare and as we all know, childcare is extremely expensive.

NRP often have higher living costs because of the financial split from a divorce. I don't claim to be an expert on divorce by any means but I would have thought it isn't the norm for one to increase the cost of living permanently for the parent who doesn't live with the child. Temporarily, yes, but long term, the cost of living for the RP&child is likely to be much higher, especially once childcare is taken into account.

RP and NRP both have to home the children whether its 5 days a week or 2 days a week. It costs the same maintain a home whether the children are there or not. Yes, the same to maintain the home (if indeed the child does stay and does have a bedroom there) but not the child. You don't feed a child who isn't there. Nor must you bathe them, keep them warm, take them to various activities, use nappies, pay for childcare, etc. And childcare is a massive issue. As an example, DD will be starting nursery full time next month. Ex's monthly contribution doesn't cover half the childcare, never mind all the other stuff he isn't providing. Yet the plan when we were together was always for me to go back to work so childcare was always on the cards. He can afford to pay for the child care outright if he wanted to,and then some (I wouldn't expect that obviously), but for him, having a child costs a fraction of what it would have if we'd stayed together. There was no divorce or mortgage to deal with. He didn't even leave the 'family' home. If I didn't need to take childcare into consideration, the balance wouldn't have me paying quite so much in excess of my 'fair share' but as CMS calculations are set so low in order to protect the minority who genuinely can't afford it, my ex and many like him who can afford to pay their fair share of the big expenses choose not to.

Exactly aye ex H maintenance only covers 1/3 cost of childcare for one of our children!!! So essentially I pay 2/3 childcare (£800) plus buy everything they need, hobbies, clothes, accommodation, food, parking for hospital appointments, school uniform and shoes, etc etc etc.

Malice - that would make sense. For nrp earning above a certain threshold, they should be liable for 50% of the childcare costs.

The government should allow ITV or Channel 5 to make a reality show where a Dog The Bounty Hunter type character hunts down debtors or non-payers compete in a Hunger Games type situation where they are humiliated and get to feel what it's like to be hungry and in clothes that are falling apart.
At least force them to get a bollocking from Judge Judy.

That's obviously never going to happen but I hate this culture of people not judging non-resident parents who don't pay. I get more than CSA minimum and it's not because I'm lucky. When he decided to have kids, he expected to financially provide for them and he loves the kids and wants them to have a great life. Many of these men know how much children cost and it blows my mind how they can pay paltry sums of money and sleep at night.

I'd watch it brows. With glee. And wade in on whichever thread popped up feeling sorry for the poor NRPs who'd been given a hard time on the programme.

I think that goes for a lot of us, Gruffalo. I'm not a single parent but I despise the inequality the system perpetuates.

16% of someones income is only a pittenance if their income is low in the first place.

If that income is artificial low because of loopholes in a tax system which means the self employed or company owners can hide income, then its the tax system that needs to be held to account.
Before the CSA, maintenance was based on assumed needs and was awful.

"Ask basil, I don't think it works well. I think it works but not for those who are self employed apparently"

Would you think that any other system which had a 3/5 failure rate, was working?

Really?

I've been pondering this a lot, and here are my suggestion solutions:
a) crack down on tax avoidance generally
b) immediately and thoroughly investigate any suspicious drop in earnings of an NRP
C) immediately and thoroughly investigate where NRP lifestyle does not match purported earnings

And, most importantly....

D) RP should be paid the due child maintenance by CMS whether or not the NRP actually pays it. Mother doesn't lose out or struggle while waiting, and CMS has an actual incentive to aggressively pursue and prosecute.non-payers

MNHQ could you please confirm what will happen to these responses as per your initial post?

Where to start. The system is a shambles with self-employed fathers getting away with murder.
My own case has been long, complicated and stressful resulting in the case ending up in enforcement and him only beginning to pay when the case went to court for the second time and bailiffs were going to turn up at his new address. He only cared about this now and he was living with a new woman in her home and did not want to have to admit to her what was going on. Prior to that, he did not care about any enforcement that he was threatened with. I was passed to different people, different departments, staff left and I had to explain things time and time again to new people and there was no consistency. I was given conflicting information and also told the wrong information without about my case because my notes had not been read correctly. After most phone calls, my head was in my hands in despair.
My ex husband now leads a comfortable life with his new girlfriend who has a good professional job with a good salary and their new baby. He works, but I do not know what he earns anymore. He used to earn very good money. The CSA have a rule that the maintenance for any existing child goes down with the birth of any new child. My child will be receiving less money because he has decided to have more children with a new person. That child will have a better life than my child. I work as well as looking after my DD but have taken a massive pay drop due to no longer being able to work in the same industry and take care of my child with no help. So on a little salary and looking after my child on my own, (he sees her once a fortnight) I am now going to have her maintenance drop AND the new CMS take at least 20% off her money from us because he refuses to deal with me directly and likes causing me as much financial distress and difficulty as possible. I am once again falling into financial problems because of these ridiculous rules that help no women and children.
The system seems to be designed for the sloppy, unresponsible parent to get away with whatever they feel like. There needs to be more prosecutions (my DD's father should have been prosecuted a long time ago) and there needs to be a higher rate of maintenance to avoid putting such a financial burden on mother's. We all know that the mother does most of the care (yes there are some alternative situations...) and it makes it very very hard for her to go back to a high pressure, full time job and look after her children alone. The woman normally take a pay cut and is penalised and then also has to receive pitiful levels of maintenance.

You simply HAVE to sort this system out. No one wishes to deal with the CSA, it has been a last resort for most of us. A system that is meant to help the responsible parent ends up doing nothing of the kind.

I am once again dealing with an ex-husband who is using every loophole he can to cut his maintenance costs.

CM is a complete joke! My ex pays £50 a week for 4 kids! Here's me struggling and even going without just so my kids have all they need and my ex? Well he's taking holidays when he likes, new clothes etc. If he doesn't pay it takes so long for them to get the money off him. And why should I have to pay money to get the money off him! Shouldn't my ex be made to pay it? If he acted like a adult and wanted the best for his children he would pay it without CM telling him too!

Yes, I simply cannot understand why they came up with the plan to charge the RP any money. Who on earth sanctioned that ridiculous idea? Taking more money from a parent who is already struggling! The child suffers for God's sake.

My DC has never had any contact with her father, we do not have any contact details for him. CSA managed to find him and did a calculation on what he should be paying. Then he disappeared without paying anything at all.

Case got transferred to the CMS who sent me a message every month saying they hadn't received his payment.
Then CMS closed our case because NRP is 'no longer habitually resident in the UK'.

Due to his very large self-employed income, he is in arrears in the tens of thousands. As we are collect and pay, it is within their interests to get him to pay, I would have thought.

Due to the Data Protection Act, they can't tell me where he is, where he has been, what he does...they can't tell me anything at all.

They say that if he comes back to the UK I can re-open the case.
Obviously, I won't be able to, as I won't know if he's come back as they won't give me contact details.

They say if he is in a certain country I can set up a REMO. Only I obviously can't do that because they won't tell me what country he is in and I have no way of finding out.

I have received a substantial payment from the CMS out of the blue. Thought it must surely be a mistake as our case is closed, so decided I wouldn't touch it and contacted them instead.

They said the NRP may have decided to voluntarily make a payment (this seems unlikely!) but that they would have their Finance Team look into it for me.

WEEKS have passed. Despite my best efforts trying to find out if this money was paid in error, their Finance Team apparently don't know yet, or perhaps haven't got around to looking into it. There is no sense of urgency at all.

Meanwhile, I am struggling to pay the rent, despite having a large amount of money in my bank account that I daren't touch in case it's CMS's mistake and I have to pay it back.

The NRP has been allowed to give them the run-around for YEARS, never paying a penny. He's now outside their jurisdiction and may never return for all I know. As far as I can tell, they never bothered to use any of the enforcement actions they had at their disposal, but even if they had, I don't think they would tell me, because they seem to like keeping me in the dark.

• How well is the CMS performing for children and parents?
  Very badly in our case, as seen above.

• What problems do parents face?
  Detailed above.

• What will happen to CSA arrears or unresolved cases when parents move to the new CMS?
  The arrears do not just disappear. They are there forever, so the CMS tells me.

Due to the Data Protection Act, they can't tell me where he is, where he has been, what he does...they can't tell me anything at all.

Well isn't this strange - we have a poster upthread, Elsa, saying that the CMS told her she couldn't claim CM because she had fled DV they might have to tell her ex her refuge address as part of the claim...

But on the other hand, when it's a delinquent father, his mere country of location is top secret, and protected by the Data Protection Act.

Isn't it funny how the CMS rules suit the men in both cases, leaving the child, and the woman, owed money.

(this is why it needs a complete overhaul)

I have five dc. In two years, since he left, we have not received a penny in maintenance. The only money to change hands is my £20 to the CMS. As an organisation, it is not fit for purpose. The use of county court bailiffs, means they knock on the door, to be told he doesn't live there and they have no power to gain entry to the property. Non payment of council tax results in magistrates court bailiffs being sent, who are able to enter your home even if you aren't there. Why is the CMS debt considered to have such low status? It bailiffs with actual power were employed then for those of us who get nothing, at least goods could be seized to pay some of the debt. I work full time and pay £680 a month in childcare. It is crippling me financially. However, no one cares!

I know this is going to sound daft but what is the difference between 'parent port' and 'parenting' sections?

Not quite sure what you mean Candle?

I think that the CMS should be able to access tax records, a percentage should be decided for each child with an absolute minimum for people on the dole, and then that's paid directly from salary or added to tax for self-employed.

They employ a quite few forensic accountants who investigate properly and suss out those whose lifestyles don't match their declared incomes, with a fine determined by a percentage of actual income. No appeal.

I'm sure that would save money in the long run.

I have a series of questions, some of which have already been asked or addressed above, but I'll repeat them anyway to add my backing. This will be long, sorry:

• I've found some of the people I've spoken to at the CMS helpful and understanding of abusive relationships - this is really positive. However, some others really don't seem to understand that and the issues surrounding it (more training needed?) and I've encountered an attitude that they need to pander to the paying parent. Why is this? I've been told (in a very patronising tone) "We need to make things easy for them because we do want them to pay, don't we?". Well now, I thought they were legally obliged to pay and you had the means to make them do so. Why does this kind of attitude which just reinforces the opinions of some parents that they're doing the RP a favour by paying, exist at the CMS?

• The wording in some of the correspondence is really confusing and can be stress-inducing. E.g., telling the receiving parent that the payment dates set had been agreed by them when they've had no opportunity to do so. I thought I'd missed a letter, turns out my ex got to choose the date and I had no say in it. Likewise I got a letter saying I'd asked them to pass my details on to my ex with a form to put them on. I didn't request that and didn't know what was going on. Why are they sending out letters stating that people have done things that they haven't?

• Why aren't receiving parents given the opportunity to discuss payment dates? Why is it all about the paying parent? The one who isn't having to feed/house/clothe/pay for childcare for the child all/the majority of the time?

• Sending out forms requesting contact details 'to facilitate contact' for NRPs can be another form of harassment. If the CMS are going to get involved like this, why can't they give the RP a choice about receiving these things, or check whether it's necessary for contact before they send them out?

• Likewise the seven day grace period can also be used to cause stress to the receiving parent. They get to choose the date of payment then get another seven days in which they can withhold the payment and then pay it as close to the seven day deadline as possible without being chased, causing stress and worry to the receiving parent. You don't get a seven day grace period on other payments, e.g. rent - if necessary you set up payments to go out a few days before the due date to ensure it's definitely paid on time. Why is this any different? Especially when they get to choose the date anyway!

• Why do they only have to update their financial information if it changes by 25%? That can be a huge amount depending on what they are earning and if you have to make your claim near to the end of the tax year, the information from HMRC is almost a year out of date anyway. For tax credits you have to notify of changes of a set amount of £2500, which is less than 25% for anyone paying tax, so why is it so different for maintenance payments? Especially bearing in mind that some calculations are based on information that can be almost two years out of date by the time the review is done?

• Why can't the review be done as a blanket operation for everyone after the end of the tax year when P60s have been generated, instead of having to wait for your anniversary date (which is even later if your claim start date gets delayed)? The current system penalises those who make a claim near to the end of the tax year (assuming the NRP's income increases year on year - and even if it doesn't, surely it's in everyone's interests to use the most up-to-date information available).

• If you have to move to Collect and Pay, why is a fee taken from the receiving parent? I can understand that this in place to stop receiving parents using the service just to force the paying parent to pay an extra fee from the start of the claim, but why is it levied on receiving parents in cases where it's been shown that the paying parent isn't paying? Particularly in cases where there's been abuse? And if they can waive the application fee in certain cases, why not the Collect and Pay fee regardless of when you start using it?

• Why is there a reduction if the paying parent moves in with other children? Children that have nothing to do with the paying parent, and in many cases will (or at least should) be receiving maintenance from their other biological parent, then get more money going towards them than the biological child of the paying parent, who misses out?

• Likewise if the paying parent has another child of their own? If they were still living with the receiving parent and had another child, they would have to consider whether or not they could afford it. The receiving parent doesn't get to pay less towards supporting their existing children if they have another, and has to factor this in when deciding if they can afford more children. Why doesn't the same apply to the paying parent?

• If you make a claim involving a NRP who is already paying maintenance for another child, they get 38 days where they are not liable to pay for your child. WHY????? I understand things need to be done with the other case, but why ON EARTH is this time not covered by backdated payments? Just when you've managed to leave/have been left and are at your most vulnerable, you have to wait weeks to find out what they will have to pay you, and then even longer before they actually have to pay it. And they still have to pay for the child/ren on the other claim. WHY are the children from the subsequent relationship given less value and support?

• The proportion of their income that the paying parent has to pay is really very low compared to the costs of raising a child and everything that goes with it. How is this calculated and why does it so heavily favour the NRP? Why aren't they obliged to contribute to childcare costs? Even if they RP isn't paying out for fee-paying childcare, they are still providing care for the child/ren which the NRP is not and the NRP can therefore work, travel, do whatever they like without concern for childcare. Why isn't this recognised?

• If the NRP has another non-resident child who they pay maintenance, they get a reduction on their CMS calculated payment. However if they pay through a family-based arrangement for the other child/ren, the amount isn't checked and could be tiny compared to the CMS calculation, particularly if an abuser has tricked or bullied the other receiving parent into accepting a lower amount - and therefore nowhere near relevant to the amount of the reduction. Why isn't this checked?

• Why is this reduction for having other children on a separate maintenance claim even in place? The children concerned aren't living in the same household so there are no joint costs. Why does the NRP get to have payments lowered for having children in different households when the receiving parents can't combine their costs to make up for the reduction in maintenance?

• Why isn't more done to chase down and enforce consequences on parents who hide income via self-employment or other means? Why is this not seen as completely unacceptable? Why aren't parents who fail to provide adequately for their children charged with or at least seen as being neglectful? That's what would happen to the RP if they did the same.

• The CMS must guarantee that they won't pass on details to the other parent if requested not to do so. Otherwise they are just another channel for abusers to harass their ex-partners through.

• Overall, the whole system seems to be set up to allow the NRP to move on and have a fully functioning life with minimal outlay to their children. Granted they're entitled to have that life but so are the RPs and most importantly the children, and instead they are left struggling in so many ways, often even when the NRP is paying what they've been told to. Why are the receiving parents and children given less importance and effective support than the paying parents?

Anther 1 for you. August. no Csa money. Apparently estranged father has had a "change of circumstance" so now he isn't paying again. Waiting to be reassessed, nothing since middle of July how do the Csa Think this is acceptable

Hi,
Any update on this? I've just opened a case with CMS after getting nowhere for 5 years with the CSA. So far, so bad.

So how is child maintenance calculated if NRP is self employed? I have approached both the solicitor and barrister who represented me during divorce (both promoting themselves as family law experts) and they were unable to comment!

@timefliesby

Hi, Any update on this? I've just opened a case with CMS after getting nowhere for 5 years with the CSA. So far, so bad.

Hi,

Really sorry to hear that

In terms of updates: the Committee published its report - you can read it here, and the recommendations are on this page.

Gingerbread is running a campaign called Maintenance Matters, exposing some of the loopholes in the CMS. You can read their guest post on Mumsnet here and if you'd like to support their campaign, do have a look at their campaign toolkit.

Thanks
MNHQ