Open Letter to the Government and the Child Maintenance Service (CMS): A Call for Fair, Transparent and Modern Reform

---

Child maintenance exists for one essential purpose: to ensure that children are properly supported after separation.

That principle is not in dispute.

What is in dispute is whether the current system reflects the financial reality of modern families, or whether it too often creates unintended hardship, mistrust, and conflict between parents who are both trying to act in their child’s best interests.

This letter is not written to blame either parent. It is written to highlight structural issues experienced across thousands of families and to call for a more balanced, transparent, and realistic approach to child maintenance in the UK.

1. A system that does not fully reflect real financial life

At present, child maintenance calculations are largely based on declared income.

While this is necessary as a starting point, it does not always reflect real-world financial capacity given that many paying parents are also managing:-

• Mortgage payments or housing costs

• Pension contributions and long-term financial planning

• Debt accumulated during or after separation

• Variable or complex income, particularly in self-employment or business ownership

These are not optional extras, they are core financial responsibilities. And yet they are not always meaningfully reflected in assessments.

As a result, some parents feel the system assesses income in isolation rather than actual affordability.

2. The challenge of self-employment and complex income structures

A key issue in modern child maintenance enforcement is the complexity of assessing income for self-employed individuals, company directors, and small business owners.

Unlike standard PAYE employment, income in these cases may:-

• Fluctuate significantly from year to year

• Be influenced by business reinvestment and operating costs

• Be structured through salary, dividends, or retained profit

• Include legitimate but complex accounting practices

In income assessment, authorities typically rely on:-

• Declared taxable profits

• Company accounts

• Salary and dividends

• Allowable business expenses

While this framework is necessary, it can still lead to disputes about what represents “true” disposable income.

This does not automatically imply wrongdoing. However, the complexity itself can create disagreement and mistrust, with paying parents feeling their real financial capacity is not fully recognised, and receiving parents feeling that declared income may not reflect actual lifestyle or resources.

3. The overlooked reality of housing and post-separation outcomes

Separation does not only divide income, it divides housing, assets, and long-term financial stability.

In some cases, one parent may remain in a mortgage-free home or retain stronger financial security, while the other continues to carry rent, mortgage obligations, or reduced financial resilience.

These wider post-separation realities are rarely considered within child maintenance calculations, despite significantly affecting each parent’s financial position.

This contributes to a perception that the system does not fully reflect the true financial consequences of separation.

4. Pressure exists on both sides

It is essential to recognise that this is not a one-sided issue.

Receiving parents often carry the majority of day-to-day childcare costs, which are substantial and ongoing.

Paying parents may feel they are contributing through maintenance while also managing significant personal financial obligations.

In many cases, both households are under financial pressure simultaneously, but in different forms. The system does not always clearly reflect this shared strain.

5. When the system increases conflict instead of reducing it

A key purpose of child maintenance should be to reduce conflict by providing clarity, consistency, and trust however, many families report:-

• Confusion over how calculations are determined

• Disputes around income assessment, particularly in self-employment cases

• Lack of transparency in decision-making

• Ongoing tension where financial obligations overlap with co-parenting arrangements

When a system is not clearly understood or trusted, it risks increasing conflict between parents rather than resolving it.

6. Financial control, abuse, and the need for careful distinction

It is also important to acknowledge that in some cases, financial control has been part of coercive or abusive relationships.

Financial coercion can include controlling access to money or creating dependency through economic restriction.

Survivors of domestic abuse may already be dealing with financial instability, housing insecurity, and long-term economic disadvantage after separation.

These are serious and complex circumstances that require careful, individual assessment and yet at the same time, post-separation disputes can sometimes lead to competing interpretations of financial behaviour and intent.

For this reason, allegations involving financial control or manipulation must always be assessed on evidence rather than assumption.

Similarly, claims that one parent is restricting contact purely for financial gain should only be considered where there is clear supporting evidence, as courts and decision-making bodies are appropriately cautious about inferring motive without proof.

7. A system that has not fully adapted to modern financial reality

The UK’s financial landscape has changed significantly. Self-employment, variable income, shared parenting arrangements, and rising housing costs are now common.

A modern child maintenance system must reflect this reality more effectively by:-

• Taking a fuller view of disposable income and genuine affordability

• Improving transparency in how assessments are made and reviewed

• Better addressing complex income structures such as self-employment and business ownership

• Recognising long-term financial obligations such as housing and pensions

8. A call for fairness, clarity, and balance

This is not a call to reduce support for children. It is a call to ensure that support is calculated in a way that is fair, realistic, and sustainable for both parents.

A system that places excessive pressure on one household risks undermining stability for everyone involved, including the child it is designed to protect.

Fairness is not about choosing between parents. It is about ensuring both households can remain financially stable while children’s needs are properly met.

Conclusion

Child maintenance should promote stability, reduce conflict, and reflect real-life financial circumstances.

For many families, the current system does not consistently achieve that balance.

We therefore urge policymakers and the Child Maintenance Service to review how assessments are made and to consider reforms that better reflect the complexity of modern family life.

A fair system is not one that is simple on paper, it is one that works in practice.

---

Deanna Newell Family Law

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