Q&A with Work and Pensions Minister Maria Miller on child support changes

DX2

CornishBloke29 wrote: »

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/48/section/47/enacted

Thanks CB.
Will have a look at the Act in full later on when I have a wee bit more time, just running out the door just now.

I did notice however from glancing quickly over the section in your link that those on Income Support or Family Credit (as they were) didn't have to pay a fee and this could well be why I was not aware that the CSA had/have a fee system in place.

PlayingHardball

Light_Speed_Cruiser wrote: »

I speak from first hand experience.


NRPs are entitled to move abroad even if it to seek a better qualify of life.

The UK cannot coerce any foreign government to change its child support laws. There has been recent changes in that child maintenance in the EU is leaning toward awarding amounts that are linked to the actual costs of bringing up children and REMO is already in place to do that. But its only as good as the country of NRPs jurisdition.
.

Nowhere in my post did I even suggest that NRP were NOT entitled to move abroad. Let them move abroad (good riddance in some cases!) But make sure they don't have the opportunity to cease supporting the children they leave behind in the UK - sometimes at great expense to Mr and Mrs UK taxpayer.

So, what do you base your knowledge of the REMO process on? First hand experience as a NRP or PWC?

kelloggs36

DX2 wrote: »

Thanks Matt.


Much better explained rather than all parents being able to claim CTC.


Assuming of course that any violence/abuse is taken into the equation.

So I don't need to to panic then as the NRP was asked to help and said if he had his way then he would put child in care.



So you get dependant benefits, just aswell as some of us actually don't get child support.




Did they?
Nearly 16 years since I have been entwined within the CSA and I have never heard the CSA charged fees, maybe you would be so kind to link me to something along the lines that the CSA did in fact charge a fee.


^^^

When they first started, the CSA charged a small fee for applying - they dropped it a couple of years later because the service was so poor that they could not justify charging it!

kelloggs36

47Fees

(1)The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for the payment, by the absent parent or the person with care (or by both), of such fees as may be prescribed in cases where the Secretary of State takes any action under section 4 or 6.

(2)The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for the payment, by the absent parent, the person with care or the child concerned (or by any or all of them), of such fees as may be prescribed in cases where the Secretary of State takes any action under section 7.

(3)Regulations made under this section—

(a)may require any information which is needed for the purpose of determining the amount of any such fee to be furnished, in accordance with the regulations, by such person as may be prescribed;

(b)shall provide that no such fees shall be payable by any person to or in respect of whom income support, family credit or any other benefit of a prescribed kind is paid; and

(c)may, in particular, make provision with respect to the recovery by the Secretary of State of any fees payable under the regulations.

DX2

kelloggs36 wrote: »

When they first started, the CSA charged a small fee for applying - they dropped it a couple of years later because the service was so poor that they could not justify charging it!

Would that have been once the Child support Act 1995 can into effect then?

Matt_Fry

Im not sure if the questions are directed at me, or to Government, but I'll do my best to answer them.

clearingout wrote: »

so what happens if a parent who is 'offered custody' says yes, please, I'd like custody of the children where the other parent also wants custody of the children? who is going to decide who gets this 'custody'? what criteria are you going to use to decide whether a parent wanting 'custody' is doing it to avoid having to make payments or hold onto his/her home rather than actually wanting 'custody' for the true benefit of the children? how are you going to impose a shared 'custody' arrangement on two parents who can't work together?

There is currently a court system in place which deals with that and a CAFCASS officer can intervene and advocate for the children. I don't think changes to these arrangements are planned in the green paper. However, the key is strengthening families and encouraging self-mediation. If they can agree on separation terms then CM is payable by the absent parent. If adjudication is needed and decision is made requiring a parent to be absent from his children against his own free will, then he(?) is not liable for child maintenance. This arrangement currently works well in France and Cyprus because it prevents a parent trying to claim custody of the children in order to secure a financial arrangement or an asset from the other parent, or seek a better quality of life for herself. Unlike the UK, the law recognises the difference between an 'absent' parent and an excluded parent.

The idea behind Child Support Agency is to force absent parents to take equal responsibility for their children if they choose not to look after them under their own free will. I really dont think Statutory child maintenance is something for parents whose absence from their children has been imposed on them. An exception can be if the NRP has been convicted of violence (or awaiting trial) against the PWC or the children.

clearingout wrote: »

who is going to tell parents who have shared residency what their individual responsiblities are (so, who cares for children during school holidays? who picks up the tab for childcare - bearing in mind that both parents can now claim CTC?)

Its never been intended CTC can be claimed concurrently by both parents. My recommendation allows a PWC to claim CTC against the NRPs taxable income.

clearingout wrote: »

what system are you going to put in place for parents to be able to air their greivances and make a claim that shared residence isn't working (so, when one parent goes on holiday for 3 weeks at 3 days notice, expecting the other parent to find childcare and pick up the cost of that so they can continue to work?)

I think people with children are a bit more responsible than that. They know by having children (or given custody of them) they cant just take off and leave the kids behind. I read a post earlier in this thread that mentioned something about introducing a three-tier system of self-mediation, mediation and adjudication. Adjudication would be binding and failure to comply (could be for example) commits an offence of contempt of court and/or NRP becomes an absent parent (rather than an excluded parent) and is now liable for CM.

clearingout wrote: »

In an ideal world, parents would act as adults and sort this out amongst themselves. But I can assure you that my professional, well-educated ex-husband isn't able to get past his own carp to be able to work together with me for the benefit of our children. You allow him shared residence automatically and half the tax credit liability with it and our children would lose the roof over their heads and be pushed from pillar to post with a father ridiculing their mother at every turn.

You have raised a very good point not listed in my original recommendations. Currently parental alienation is not recognised in British law and I think it should be recognised as child cruelty and made a criminal offence. I'll put it forward to Government to consider. I also think that educating the community is very important. It's a social taboo a father fails to pay maintenance for his children, but equally I think the community should be educated that a parent who alienates the children against the other parent for financial gain is also a social taboo.

clearingout wrote: »

You are essentially suggesting that the State presides over parenting and brings up our children for us. It's not workable. The cost to the tax payer is huge

I think the mediation/adjudication system mentioned earlier sounds a very good idea which would be minimal in cost to operate. I think we should put that forward to government to consider for a pilot scheme.

clearingout wrote: »

and I'm not personally convinced that the numbers for which it would 'work' (because I acknowledge there are those for whom this system would ensure children grow up with both parents active in their lives) would give enough cost-benefit to justify it (if you get me!).

And for every NRP living in a crappy bedsit, unable to work 'cos the CSA takes too much money from them, there's a PWC and children living in poverty, not necessarily because the CSA fails to secure child maintenance payments from the NRP, but because it is generally the PWC who has given up work so ruined career prospects, or works in the lower-paid (usually 'caring') professions on a part-time basis to try and juggle work with children. What is this system going to do for them?

The amount of money between PWC and NRP is finite. But I also recognise the NRP carries a huge burden of up to 40% of his income after he has paid his tax liabilities. The state makes a great deal of money from a working NRP and currently does not give him (or the PWC) any tax credit to reflect this. I really think a concession is the answer. At least we should provide CSA paying NRPs with similar concessions if his income is akin to what he would otherwise earn if he was living on state benefits. For example free prescriptions, reduction in council tax and other liabilities which reflect his actual income and not assess his income before his CSA liabilities are taken out.

clearingout

Thanks Matt. I had misunderstood the Tax Credit thing and I agree, that makes some sense although I'll need to sit on it to see if I agree with it. People with children are not necessarily 'sensible' or 'responsible' - my ex went on holiday at three days notice last summer leaving me high and dry. He couldn't care less about my life, and the related impact his actions have on our children, as long as he's getting what he needs. I am not alone in having an ex like that. CAFCASS and the courts are already overloaded. I worry that if you introduce a 'right' to shared residence, the system would grind to a halt entirely as there are so many people who would fight for that right, without necessarily understanding what it means. It took my ex 18 months of shared care and messing about to realise that his working commitments just wouldn't allow for it. His response to that has, literally, been to stick two fingers up at the children and I and walk away rather than try to work out some kind of alternative that allows a win-win for all of us. Believe me, having been a working mum with shared care and a working mum with no time off at all, I would much prefer the first scenario with a related drop in child maintenance (not that I get any anyway, but you know what I mean!). My ex is someone for whom this system of talking with a third party to work things out could work, if only you could get him to the appointment in the first place!

FBaby

Matt_Fry wrote: »

Currently parental alienation is not recognised in British law and I think it should be recognised as child cruelty and made a criminal offence. I'll put it forward to Government to consider. I also think that educating the community is very important. It's a social taboo a father fails to pay maintenance for his children, but equally I think the community should be educated that a parent who alienates the children against the other parent for financial gain is also a social taboo.

i thought there was much debate around this around the world? What does trully constitute parental alienation? I have read a few threads where nrps throw this in the air if his/her children suddenly express the desire not to see them. It refuses to accept that sometimes, the child just doesn't want to have contact for x, y, z reasons that has nothing to do with the pwc alienating the child. Also, different children will respond totally differently to an 'attempt' at alienation. Some children will believe everything the pwc will say to denigrate the nrp, but for some other children, it will have the absolute opposite effect. And then of course, you have the debate of parental alienation coming from the nrp, and what you do in that case?

Orson_Cart_2

In the US, it doesnt matter which parent alienates the children from the other parent. It works both ways and still a felony.

**Patty**

FBaby wrote: »

i thought there was much debate around this around the world? What does trully constitute parental alienation? I have read a few threads where nrps throw this in the air if his/her children suddenly express the desire not to see them. It refuses to accept that sometimes, the child just doesn't want to have contact for x, y, z reasons that has nothing to do with the pwc alienating the child. Also, different children will respond totally differently to an 'attempt' at alienation. Some children will believe everything the pwc will say to denigrate the nrp, but for some other children, it will have the absolute opposite effect. And then of course, you have the debate of parental alienation coming from the nrp, and what you do in that case?

What do you do?

Start by removing the *gillick competancy* at the tender age of 12.
Change it to 16, where any child is much more aware and able to deal with emotions and influences.