Child Maintenance Reform Must Protect Every Child, Why a One-Size-Fits-All System Is No Longer Enough

---

By Deanna Newell

Founder - DN Family Law

Introduction

When child maintenance is discussed, the debate often becomes divided between paying parents and receiving parents.

It should not.

At the heart of this issue are children who deserve financial security, stability and protection.

The purpose of child maintenance should be simple: to ensure children receive the support they need, while ensuring assessments are fair, transparent and based on the true circumstances of each family.

However, separated families can experience very complex financial, emotional and safeguarding issues that cannot always be captured by a single calculation.

A one-size-fits-all approach does not always work.

The Reality for Receiving Parents

Many receiving parents, particularly those leaving abusive relationships, leave with no home, no savings and little financial security.

They may have experienced financial control, dependency or restricted access to money. Leaving can mean rebuilding an entire life while providing a safe and stable home for their children.

For these families, child maintenance is not optional. It can be essential for paying for food, clothing, heating, housing, education and the everyday costs of raising children.

Where maintenance is hidden, avoided or deliberately underpaid, it is children who suffer.

The Reality for Paying Parents

However, there is another side of the system that also requires recognition.

Some paying parents have already made substantial financial sacrifices during divorce or separation. They may have transferred the family home, given up savings, or accepted changes to pension arrangements through a court-approved financial settlement to provide stability for their children.

And yet these previous financial contributions are not always reflected in Child Maintenance Service calculations (CMS) .

Once relevant financial orders no longer affect maintenance assessments, calculations are generally based primarily on declared income rather than the wider financial history of the family.

For some parents, it can feel like starting again with a clean slate despite previous sacrifices made for their children.

When Child Arrangements and Maintenance Become Connected

Child maintenance and child arrangements are separate issues.

A child’s relationship with each parent should always be determined by their welfare, safety and best interests, not by financial negotiations. However, some families report situations where child maintenance becomes linked to contact arrangements.

This may include circumstances where there is a Child Arrangements Order stating that there is no direct contact, or where the court has determined that contact should be limited to indirect contact only following consideration of the circumstances of the case, including any welfare or safeguarding issues raised before the court.

Concerns are also raised where a parent links financial support to contact taking place on their own terms, for example, stating that they will only pay more child maintenance if they are able to see the children in a particular way, despite there being an court order requiring indirect contact and no contact orders. 

Financial responsibility towards a child should not be used as leverage to pressure changes to child arrangements.

Equally, child arrangements should never be determined by financial advantage.

Where financial pressure is used to influence contact arrangements, this may require careful assessment as part of a wider pattern of coercive control, emotional abuse, economic abuse or financial abuse.

Every case must be assessed on its own evidence, as there can also be legitimate safeguarding reasons why contact is restricted.

Overnight Contact and Maintenance Calculations

The Child Maintenance Service (CMS) calculation takes account of shared overnight care.

Where there are no overnight stays, the shared-care reduction does not apply, meaning maintenance payments are generally higher.

Many parents accept this approach where arrangements genuinely reflect the child’s living arrangements and where decisions about contact are based on the child’s welfare and best interests.

However, a growing number of parents raise concerns about cases where overnight contact is restricted for long periods because of ongoing court proceedings, parental conflict, delays within the Family Justice system, or situations where one parent is perceived to be controlling or limiting the child’s relationship with the other parent.

Concerns are also raised about circumstances where one parent becomes the main decision-maker or gatekeeper of contact arrangements without a clear resolution, leaving the other parent with limited involvement in their child’s day-to-day life.

These situations can create significant emotional and financial consequences for families. However, where contact is restricted, each case must be assessed individually, as there may also be genuine welfare or safeguarding reasons requiring limitations.

The focus must always remain on ensuring that decisions are based on evidence, the child’s best interests and the child’s right to safe and meaningful relationships wherever appropriate.

For some paying parents, the impact is not only emotional, the loss of regular time with their children but also financial.

Some report feeling that they remain financially responsible while having limited involvement in their children’s day-to-day lives, creating a feeling that they are viewed only as a source of financial support rather than as a parent.

Some paying parents report that where there are no overnight stays for extended periods, the resulting maintenance calculation places them under significant financial pressure. Some describe having to take loans, use credit or reduce essential spending simply to meet their living costs while continuing to pay child maintenance.

At the same time, some receiving parents may receive higher maintenance because the shared-care reduction does not apply when there are no overnight stays.

In addition, some parents may have received financial settlements following divorce or separation, raising questions about whether the current assessment process always captures the full financial circumstances of both households.

These issues highlight the importance of looking beyond a single calculation.

Child maintenance is a child’s entitlement and parents should contribute towards their children’s needs. However, where complex circumstances exist, including restricted contact, previous financial settlements, disputed finances or concerns about coercive control, the system should have a mechanism to assess the wider picture.

No parent should be pushed into financial hardship, and no child should be left without appropriate support. A fair system must balance both principles: protecting children’s financial security while ensuring maintenance decisions are transparent, proportionate and based on the real circumstances of the family.

Financial Transparency and Complex Income

Another area requiring attention is financial transparency.

Many self-employed people and business owners declare their income accurately and responsibly. However, concerns are regularly raised about whether the current system always captures a parent’s true financial resources where income is structured through businesses, dividends, retained profits or other arrangements.

Some campaigners argue that a small minority of business owners may appear to have a low taxable income while having access to wider financial resources.

Where there are genuine concerns, the system should have the ability to look beyond a single income figure and assess the full financial picture.

A fair system must follow the evidence and ensure that children’s needs are not affected by incomplete financial information.

Financial Abuse Can Affect Either Parent

Domestic abuse remains one of the most serious issues facing separated families.

Many survivors leave relationships with nothing. Financial abuse is often part of that pattern, leaving parents and children facing hardship while rebuilding their lives.

However, financial abuse and coercive control can affect both receiving and paying parents in different ways. This may include:-

• Lack of financial transparency

• Hidden income or assets

• Control over access to money

• Disputes involving child arrangements

• Pressure linked to financial support

• Attempts to use finances as a means of control

In some cases, allegations of parental alienation or unjustified restrictions on a child’s relationship with the other parent are raised.

Where a parent deliberately manipulates a child, interferes with a relationship without justification, or uses child arrangements as a means of control, this may form part of a wider pattern of coercive or controlling behaviour.

However, safeguarding concerns must always be taken seriously, and every case must be assessed individually.

The Child Maintenance Service and Family Justice system must be capable of identifying complex patterns of financial abuse, economic abuse, emotional abuse and coercive control wherever they exist.

Growing Financial Pressure on Families

Since COVID-19 and throughout the cost-of-living crisis, families across the country have faced increasing financial pressures.

Andy Burnham has highlighted concerns about families being pushed into severe financial difficulty, including fears that some are being forced to sell their homes because of rising pressures.

While those comments were made in the wider context of social care and family finances, they raise an important question:

When families reach breaking point financially, should Government also examine whether current systems, including child maintenance assessments are always identifying and responding to complex hardship?

No child should suffer because systems fail to understand the reality of their family circumstances.

DN Family Law Recommendation: A Mandatory Three-Tier Family Justice and Child Maintenance Triage System

DN Family Law is calling for a mandatory three-tier approach.

Tier 1 – Standard Assessment

For straightforward cases where financial circumstances are clear and transparent.

Tier 2 – Enhanced Financial and Family Assessment

For cases involving:-

• Self-employment and business ownership

• Complex income structures

• Previous financial settlements

• Disputed income

• Financial abuse

• Economic abuse

• Coercive control

• Domestic abuse

• Complex child arrangements

• Concerns that declared income does not reflect true financial resources

This assessment would consider the whole financial picture.

Tier 3 – Court and Multi-Agency Safeguarding Review

For the most complex cases involving:-

• Serious safeguarding concerns

• Domestic abuse

• Hidden assets

• Significant financial disputes

• Complex family dynamics

• Child welfare concerns requiring wider intervention

• Cases where child arrangements, contact restrictions and maintenance obligations appear to be interconnected

This tier should also consider cases where there are significant restrictions on child contact, including no overnight stays, where there are no identified safeguarding concerns, but where the arrangements may have a substantial impact on child maintenance calculations and the financial circumstances of both households.

The purpose of review would not be to presume wrongdoing or override genuine safeguarding decisions.

It would be to ensure that contact arrangements, financial assessments and the child’s best interests are considered together where complex circumstances exist.

Where restrictions on contact have a financial impact, decisions should be based on evidence, transparency and the welfare of the child, not financial pressure, conflict or incentives linked to maintenance outcomes.

Child Maintenance Reform Must Reflect the Reality of Modern Families

No child or parent should be living in hardship.

Child maintenance was created to ensure that parents who refuse or fail to financially support their children can be held accountable. It was never intended to become a system that creates further conflict, financial pressure or hardship for either parent.

A modern Child Maintenance Service must recognise the reality of today’s economy.

Not every parent receives a traditional salary through PAYE. Many people are self-employed, small business owners, sole shareholders, contractors or work in industries where income can be variable. Some may have business structures, retained profits or other financial resources that are not always reflected by a simple taxable income figure.

A system that relies too heavily on one figure does not always capture the full financial picture.

Equally, declaring an income around the Personal Allowance threshold of £12,570 raises questions about whether that figure genuinely reflects a parent’s ability to contribute, particularly during a time when the cost of living has increased significantly. Few families could realistically meet modern living costs on that amount alone without other financial support, resources or circumstances being considered.

DN Family Law supports proposals to increase the Personal Tax Allowance to £25,000 as part of wider discussions about fairness, affordability and supporting families.

However, tax reform alone will not resolve the challenges within child maintenance.

A fair society requires transparency, accountability and fairness. Child maintenance should be based on the principle that both parents contribute towards the cost of raising their children according to their true financial circumstances.

Where one paying parent is assessed at a higher level and contributes hundreds of pounds a month, but another case results in a much lower contribution, such as £83 per child, families naturally question whether the system is consistently identifying the real ability to pay.

The answer cannot simply be a formula.

It must be a system that considers:-

• Income

• Business interests

• Self-employment

• Assets

• Previous financial settlements

• Genuine living circumstances

• Child arrangements

• Safeguarding concerns

• Any evidence of financial abuse or coercive control

Child maintenance should not be used to punish one parent or financially reward another. It should exist to ensure that children receive appropriate support while recognising the complex realities of modern family life.

That is why DN Family Law believes reform is needed through a mandatory Three-Tier Family Justice and Child Maintenance Triage System, one that protects children, improves transparency and ensures that assessments are based on the complete financial picture rather than simply the numbers appearing on paper.

---

Deanna Newell | Founder | DN Family Law

Advocacy for truth-tellers, survivors, and the children who deserve better