The Child Maintenance System Is Not Broken by Accident, It Needs Reform - Now!
Following the Daily Express coverage of the growing debate around Child Maintenance Service reform, and the Great British PAC petition calling for a fairer system for both parents, there is an opportunity to have a much bigger conversation about what genuine CMS reform should look like.
The principle behind child maintenance is simple;
Both parents have a responsibility to support their children.
However the system used to determine that responsibility is anything but simple for many families.
Simple cases should remain simple. Complex cases must be recognised as complex.
The Government has proposed reducing the income-change tolerance from 25% to 15%. That is welcome, but it cannot be the end of the conversation.
A system can become better at recalculating an income figure while still failing to establish whether the original figure reflects the wider financial circumstances.
A low income should not automatically mean wrongdoing — it should also not automatically mean that there is no financial investigation
I am not suggesting that an income of £12,570 is automatically incorrect simply because it is low.
The question is whether it is accurate and complete in the particular circumstances.
Where there is credible evidence of an established business, substantial trading, company interests, online sales, property, assets or expenditure apparently inconsistent with the declared circumstances, CMS should be able to investigate.
The receiving parent should not have to prove financial information they cannot access.
Sure, they should provide the evidence that they can obtain, and then the CMS should use its statutory powers to establish the facts.
That is why the Great British PAC’s campaign needs to go further.
Follow the money trail
For genuinely complex cases, the CMS should be capable of examining, where legally appropriate:-
Salary
Dividends
Retained profits
Company benefits
Business interests
Online trading
Property
Assets; and
Other relevant income
This does not mean treating company turnover as personal income.
It does however mean asking the right questions.
Turnover → Expenses → Taxable profit → Salary → Dividends → Retained profits → Assets → Other income
A straightforward PAYE case should remain straightforward.
A complex company or self-employed case should receive appropriate scrutiny.
Economic abuse cannot be treated as an ordinary CMS dispute
Domestic abuse does not necessarily end when a relationship ends.
Economic abuse can continue through:-
Withholding maintenance
Manipulation of income
Control of assets
Control of business interests
Financial dependency
Deliberate non-payment; or
Using the financial system to maintain control
Mandatory domestic-abuse training for CMS staff is important.
However, training is not the same as an effective safeguarding pathway.
Survivors need safe communication, appropriate payment arrangements, specialist escalation and access to financial investigation where necessary.
Reform must also protect paying parents
Fairness has to work both ways.
There are honest paying parents experiencing debt, unemployment, reduced income, housing costs or genuine financial hardship. They should not automatically be treated as though a low income means they are avoiding responsibility.
There are also paying parents who have made substantial provision for their children through housing, mortgage payments, school fees, savings, pensions or other assets.
I am not suggesting that every payment should automatically reduce the CMS amount.
However, substantial and genuine provision should be capable of consideration within an enhanced assessment where appropriate.
The system should establish the right amount, rather than simply assuming one parent is right and the other is wrong.
Shared care needs a safeguarding framework
Where children genuinely spend 156 nights or more a year with each parent, both parents are maintaining a home and meeting substantial costs.
Genuine shared care should be properly recognised.
And the CMS must also recognise the reality of disputed contact.
Some receiving parents restrict contact because of genuine safeguarding concerns.
Others may restrict overnight contact for reasons that have nothing to do with safeguarding.
Many paying parents cannot afford Family Court proceedings to establish genuine shared care.
These cases cannot be resolved simply by assuming either parent is telling the truth.
Neutral, evidence-based assessment is required.
The three-tier solution
Here at DN Family Law we believe that a proportionate three-tier system should form part of an urgent, multifaceted, family justice improvement programme:-
Tier 1 — Standard; Straightforward PAYE cases where there is no abuse reported.
Tier 2 — Enhanced Financial; Self-employed parents, company directors, controlling shareholders, online traders, those with complex income, significant assets or cases with evidence of credible financial discrepancies.
Tier 3 — Financial & Safeguarding; Complex finances combined with domestic abuse, coercive control, economic abuse, safeguarding concerns or significant care disputes.
This three tier system would not make CMS more complicated for everyone. It would mean the right cases receive the right level of scrutiny.
The 15% threshold is only part of the answer
Reducing the 25% threshold to 15% should make CMS more responsive to changes in an existing income figure. However it does not answer the fundamental question:-
Is the starting figure accurate?
A more responsive calculation cannot fix an inaccurate starting point.
That is why reform must include better financial information, enhanced investigation, transparency and independent oversight.
Children must remain at the centre
This debate should not become mothers versus fathers or receiving parents versus paying parents. There are families struggling on both sides.
There are survivors of domestic abuse.
There are paying parents experiencing genuine hardship.
There are receiving parents carrying disproportionate costs.
There are children with autism, ADHD, disabilities and other additional needs whose costs are substantially higher.
And there are complex financial cases that cannot responsibly be dealt with through a standard calculation.
The Daily Express has helped bring this issue into the public debate, while the Great British PAC petition provides an important platform that demands reform.
The Government however needs to go further.
We do not simply need a CMS that recalculates.
We need a CMS that investigates when necessary, protects when necessary, recognises genuine shared parenting, understands economic abuse and produces an assessment that both parents can understand and trust.
Simple cases should remain simple.
Complex cases must be recognised as complex.
Honest paying parents must be protected.
Receiving parents must not be pushed into poverty.
And children must remain at the centre.
It is time to reform the Child Maintenance Service , not simply recalculate it.
Deanna Newell | Founder - DN Family Law | Campaign Lead - Reform That Works
Advocacy for truth-tellers, survivors, and the children who deserve better
