Child Maintenance Was Created for Children. Not for Parents to Fight Over
- Deanna Newell
- Jun 8
- 2 min read
When child maintenance was introduced through the Child Support Act 1991, the principle was straightforward:
Every parent has a responsibility to financially support their child.
The system was created to ensure that children did not suffer because their parents lived apart. It was about children, not mothers. It was about children, not fathers.
Child Maintenance was all about the children (Statutes.uk).
More than thirty years later, we seem to have lost sight of that purpose.
As someone with autism, I notice patterns. One of the biggest patterns I see is the increasing stereotyping of parents.
Social media is full of claims that all mothers are gold diggers, all fathers are victims, all receiving parents are dishonest, or all paying parents are avoiding responsibility.
None of these stereotypes help children.
The reality is far more complex.
There are fathers who work incredibly hard, pay maintenance, stay involved in their children's lives, and make sacrifices every day for their families.
There are mothers who receive little or no maintenance, work full-time, struggle with rising living costs, and still do everything they can to provide stability for their children.
There are also parents on both sides who misuse the system, hide income, avoid responsibilities, or use money and children as tools in adult conflicts.
The problem is not mothers.
The problem is not fathers.
The problem is accountability.
Financial alienation is real. Economic abuse is real. Child poverty is real.
The rising cost of raising children is real.
While adults argue online about who has it worse, many children are growing up in households where one parent is carrying most of the financial burden alone.
At the same time, family courts are often criticised unfairly. The courts exist to make decisions based on evidence, safeguarding, and the welfare of children. They are not perfect, but they are increasingly focused on facts rather than assumptions.
We need less shouting and more evidence.
Less stereotyping and more accountability.
Less gender politics and more focus on children's needs.
Money leaves a trail.
Evidence tells a story.
Children deserve financial support from both parents wherever possible.
Children deserve safe relationships with both parents wherever possible.
Children deserve better than being caught in adult disputes.
The purpose of child maintenance has not changed since 1991. Children still need food, clothing, housing, education, healthcare, opportunities, and stability. The question is whether our current system is meeting the realities of modern family life.
If reform is needed, it should be driven by evidence, fairness, and the best interests of children, not by stereotypes about mothers or fathers.
Because at the end of the day, every child deserves the best possible start in life.
Deanna Newell Family Law
Advocacy for truth-tellers, survivors, and the children who deserve better
