When Child Maintenance Hurts: The Hidden Crisis of Paying Parents

---

The Child Maintenance Service (CMS) was created with a clear purpose: to ensure children receive financial support from both parents.

Under the Child Support Act 1991, that responsibility is not optional, it is a legal duty.

But what happens when a system designed to protect children begins to harm the very parents trying to provide for them?

This is no longer a marginal issue.

It is a growing reality across the UK.

The Financial Reality That No One Talks About

In divorce proceedings, financial settlements are designed to divide assets fairly, taking into account housing, income, and the needs of both parties and their children. But the law creates a critical divide.

Under the Child Support Act 1991 Section 8, child maintenance is largely removed from the courts and placed into the CMS system.

And crucially;

A court-agreed arrangement can be overridden after just 12 months.

This means a financial agreement reached during divorce does not bring long-term certainty.

What This Means in Reality

A paying parent may:-

• Transfer a mortgage-free home or continue paying the mortgage to secure housing for their children

• Walk away from assets to reach a settlement

• Agree terms in good faith, often under pressure

And then: -

They are reassessed under a separate system.

Liability is recalculated.

Payments increase.

For many, it feels like paying twice.

But That’s Only One Side of the Story

There is another reality, and it matters just as much.

In many cases, receiving parents, often the primary carers leave relationships with:-

• No savings

• No property in their name

• Little or no financial independence

This is particularly common in situations involving financial and economic control, where one partner has restricted access to money or resources.

As a result:-

• They may be unable to secure a fair financial settlement

• They may accept less simply to move forward

• They may rely heavily, or entirely on CMS to meet their children’s basic needs

These are not parents “benefiting” from the system.

They are parents rebuilding from nothing while raising children.

The Other Side of That Reality

At the same time, there are paying parents who are also struggling:-

• Some fall into genuine poverty

• Some cannot keep up with payments and fall into arrears

• Some face enforcement action despite financial hardship

And yes, there are cases where income is deliberately reduced or hidden.

But the system often fails to distinguish clearly between those who cannot pay and those who choose not to pay.

That distinction is not minor. It is fundamental to fairness.

Income, Businesses, and the Grey Areas

Another growing concern is how income is assessed, particularly where a paying parent is self-employed, runs a small business, or is a majority shareholder.

Under the Child Support Maintenance Calculation Regulations 2012, CMS primarily relies on declared taxable income, often sourced from HMRC records.

But in practice, this can create grey areas.

Some business owners may:-

• Pay themselves a lower salary while retaining profits within a company

• Receive income through dividends rather than wages

• Offset income against expenses in ways that reduce assessable earnings

In these situations, the income used by CMS may not always reflect the true financial position or available resources.

It is important to be clear:-

This is not about assuming wrongdoing in every case.

Many small business owners face genuine financial instability and fluctuating income.

However, there are concerns, raised in policy discussions and parliamentary evidence, that the current system can be open to manipulation in some cases, while failing to respond quickly when income does not reflect reality.

Why This Matters

When income is understated:-

• Receiving parents may not receive adequate support for their children

• Paying parents who are honest may feel unfairly treated in comparison

• Trust in the system is eroded

And once again, the system struggles to distinguish between:-

• Legitimate financial structuring

• And deliberate avoidance of responsibility

A system that relies on declared income alone — without fully capturing real financial capacity, risks getting it wrong on both sides.

A System Under Pressure,  And Causing It

Child maintenance is calculated under the Child Support Maintenance Calculation Regulations 2012, using a fixed formula based primarily on gross income.

But this formula:-

• Does not fully reflect real living costs

• Does not account for debt or housing pressures

• Does not consider what has already been provided in a divorce settlement

At the same time, enforcement powers have increased under the Child Support (Enforcement) Act 2023, allowing faster recovery of arrears.

Stronger enforcement without greater flexibility creates pressure and that pressure lands on families.

The Human Cost

An investigation by Disability News Service raised serious concerns:-

• Over 4,900 paying parents reportedly died between 2020 and 2022 while involved with CMS

• Analysis suggested mortality rates may be significantly higher than the general population

Campaigners, including STOPSuicides UK, have linked CMS-related stress to:-

• Severe mental health decline

• Financial breakdown

• Homelessness

These figures remain contested and require full transparency.

But they point to something deeper:

A system that is not just administrative, but human in its consequences.

When the System Gets It Wrong

Cases such as Gavin Briggs highlight the risks of error.-

• Incorrect assessments.

• Disputed arrears.

• Delays in correction.

When the system fails, the consequences escalate quickly.

For some, the impact is not temporary.

It is life-changing.

An Unbalanced System

This is not a debate about one side versus the other.

It is about a system that separates:-

• Divorce financial settlements

• Ongoing child maintenance obligations

Without properly connecting the two.

The result?

• Paying parents feel they have already given everything

• Receiving parents feel they were left with nothing

Both experiences can be true, and when both sides feel unheard, the system is no longer functioning, it is dividing.

What Needs to Change

Reform is not optional.

It is necessary.

Parliament must urgently review:-

• How CMS calculations reflect real living costs

• Whether prior financial settlements should be properly recognised

• How to clearly distinguish between inability to pay and deliberate avoidance

• What safeguards exist for mental health and vulnerability

• How accountability is enforced when system errors occur

Because enforcement without fairness is not justice.

A Call for Balance

Children deserve financial support. That must remain the priority.

But the system delivering that support must also be:-

• Fair

• Accurate

• Human

Right now, too many families are being pushed to breaking point, financially, emotionally, and psychologically.

This is not just a policy issue. It is a systemic failure that demands attention.

We need balance.

We need accountability. We need reform. We need fairness. 

---

Deanna Newell Family Law

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