Memorandum submitted by Moneywatchers
As a Child Support Practitioner of some 10 years
standing, I have found myself acting for many clients of all genders,
races and creeds.
I am able to say that there has been no single
overriding satisfactory comment made by any section within my
client bank towards any system of Child Support Maintenance that
has been put forward since 1993.
In general, I am able to say that the non-resident
parent, who may be considered to be compliant in isolation to
the bulk who it felt are not compliant feel that both the two
systems that are running today, pitch the maintenance a too high
a level.
We have never been able to move away from the
feeling that the non-resident parent feel that the money goes
to their ex partners or wives and not to the children and one
overbearing comment that I have always received is thus:
"Why can't I pay the money to my children
directly"
It takes an inordinate length of my time explain
that this was never really possible under the court system let
alone possible under any system derived by any politician or political
party to impose payments to be taken or made from the non-resident
parent for the benefit of the separated family.
I use the word "separated family"
advisedly because it must be a tenant that cannot separate the
support of children from that of support of the mother and this
has never been a tenant that society has operated upon for many
many years, if indeed ever at all. Where does this leave us then?
Well, from the non-resident parents point of view, we find the
complaints are as follows:
(1) The amount they have to pay is too high.
(2) It does not benefit the children, it
benefits their ex wife.
(3) It does not do anything for the standard
of living because she's on benefit and doesn't receive any of
it.
(4) It is no more than a tax gathering exercise.
(5) I cannot pay it to my child and it is
unfair.
At this point I am deliberately avoiding the
impact on businesses, small or large and I will come to the proposal
for removing the payments from gross pay later.
Now I turn to resident parent because one might
think that they should not have any complaints at all but that
is far from the truth, as we all know.
The resident parents that I deal with are indeed
just as aggrieved at the actions of the Agency but from a totally
different prospective.
Their complaints are as follows:
(1) The Agency does not have enough investigative
powers.
(2) He has not declared his true status.
(3) He has not declared his true earnings.
(4) He is self-employed, what chance do I
stand?
(5) The Agency have had my application for
12 months and lost it.
(6) The Agency have had my application and
they have done nothing with it.
These are just a few of the comments of the
non-resident parent and indeed following interaction with another
practitioner and where I have been acting for the mother and he
has been acting for the father, in circumstances the non-resident
parent has put in wage details, which are patently incorrect and
that situation has latterly been corrected with the Agency on
behalf of the mother by myself. In adversity we have reached agreement
for payment.
But at what cost? To the adults, complete and
utter stress and for the child, well the child in this case was
too young to know what was happening.
It is certain that we cannot get away from any
system that is designed to ensure payments are made for the benefit
of children from non-resident parents but noting the above, the
conflict in these circumstances is legion.
It is proposed that consent orders should not
be permanent because this would "place too much stress on
the court system" this is not the issue, if a consent order
has been made, then that consent order should be encouraged and
it should be given the certainty of longevity and only in the
most dire circumstances, should that consent order be taken out
of the courts, or not allowed to go back to the courts and then
placed in a Child Maintenance Collection System.
It is with respect to legislation in this country
that is purported to be put in place upon a "holistic basis"
that we are falling down. Whilst we are giving certainty in legislative
proposals, "the workability" of such proposals have
been poorly thought out and poorly put in place.
We would not be in the situation we are now
with Child Support having expended so much money and having caused
so much public outcry, if there had been on day one a "holistic
thought" regarding the whole of matrimonial law the whole
thorny subject of Child Support and a more comprehensive trial
of any system that was proposed within the country.
If we note above that fathers feel that the
two systems that we already have in place CSCS and CS2 have produced
payments that are too high, then what are they going to say when
they find out that it is proposed that we base an assessment on
their gross earnings?
Following brief consultation with my client
bank and in the main I have to say from parents with care, they
are horrified that their ex partners and husbands would be assessed
on their gross earnings. This is a total unnecessary anathema.
Any man who has paid tax, National Insurance and pension, who
is then assessed at a lower rate has now proposed, being 10, 15
and 20% for one, two or three children out of his gross pay will
not then feel that he is being fairly treated. Those parents that
I have dealt with within the Australian Child Support Agency,
certainly feel that this is an anathema and with respect to the
provision of information on an historical basis in the Australian
CSA, it has proven to be an extremely an unfortunate organisation
to deal with. If it is felt that there is no system in place in
this country that can capture all of the basic cases, then surely
with respect the standard earner on an employed basis, it is sufficient
to ask the employer to provide his earnings details tax, NI and
pension as we already have been able to do and should continue
to do.
With the self-employed it is different, we have
a situation with the self-employed, where even the Inland Revenue,
VAT and the conclusion of Child Support Agency has been no different,
that they are a very difficult group of people to administer and
to obtain information from.
Therefore, a proposal we have to able to investigate
credit reference agencies and financial services for the provision
of information concerning bank accounts, investments etc. should
be treated with a great degree of circumspection. Anyone who has
nothing to fear should and would not be subject to such an investigation.
However, for those who deliberately evade, they should.
The problem here is that we adopt a global solution,
which is addressed only to illicit information from a small minority
and once more, we would then give rise to public hostility and
an adverse reaction.
Whilst I appreciate that an awful lot of the
provision of information must rest with the resident parent, I
also feel that to put in place a legislative body with an overbearing
and completely blanket solution would be wrong. It seems to me
that we are proposing a system, which in its operation would be
seen to be so draconian and would in fact produce the same reaction
but from a different point of view that the first two systems
have produced.
In an endeavour to alleviate child poverty,
we do seem to be moving towards evermore exotic and draconian
methods rather than considering the best way, the fairest way,
and the most acceptable way.
Now one of the things that has been discussed
consistently amongst some clients is why does the money have to
go the state, why cannot my ex partner or wife keep some of it?
If we think back I understand that the American
system when CSCS was considered way back in 1989-90-91-92 and
93, one of the things that was said was do not where State Support
is in payment, put all the money back in to the treasury.
We face this question today with one heartfelt
comment, that "why cannot mom keep more of the money"?
Following discussions in general about this
point, the one thing that has come to the fall is as follows:
"Why should they"? "Does not
the tax payer have a say"? "Why should we continue to
work to support them"? This is going to be a fine line in
consideration, together with the thoughts that anyone may have
regarding working tax credit and it's impact in these circumstances,
together with the impact on income support that allowing the non-resident
parent to keep more money would have together with the tax credit
system and the minimum wage in this country as a whole, could
produce most horrendous results and backlash in this country,
that we have not seen for many a year.
To have a sound bite of alleviating more children
with respect to lifting them out of poverty but when we come to
the detailed consideration of how we go about this, then we do
begin to see I believe that this is a potential mine field.
My client bank feelings are echoed in this entire
e-mail and whilst I must admit that as a professional operating
in the field of Child Support Agency advise, it is only those
clients who can afford the necessary fees and of cause my views
will not be the same as those that come from the national council
for one parent families and that come from the Citizens Advise
Bureau and any other charitable advisor that I do believe, that
will be on a par in sentiment with any comment that is made.
It is too dangerous to take any one simplistic
point of view and implement it in this system and to that end
I now enclose a press release from one of the firms of solicitors
that I deal with. This is entitled "press release 13 December
2006 Child Support—Getting It Right First".
I think you will find its content self-explanatory,
at Lawson-West being one of the largest firms in Leicester have
aired their views in this manor and wish me to put them forward
to yourselves.
To sum up:
(1) I agree with the removal of compulsion
for separating couples to have to use C-MEC except in the most
un-compliant cases.
(2) I believe that placing both names, of
the "biological parents" of the child on the birth certificate
is correct.
(3) The role of the courts? If you wish to
foster both certainty and agreement then an order of the court
must be seen clearly and unequivocally to fulfil both of the above
and thus place within the general publics mind assurances that
what they do is lasting.
(4) The use of historic tax-income is "close
enough to the current financial position of most non-resident
parents". This is simply a corruption of the Australian system,
which is also at this time under a "holistic review"
I understand simply to reduce the percentages for each child in
return for this purported simplification is not equitable.
I am not in agreement with a variation percentage
of 25% in the gross pay before a change of circumstances can be
bought about.
(5) If charging for the use of C-MEC is brought
in then both parties should be charged a fee. On divorce where
"assets" are concerned, neither party can claim costs
off the other in normal circumstances. If as you mention on page
42, paragraph 2.47 "non the less, the Government is still
determined to develop a culture in which the welfare of children
is paramount and people are clear that fatherhood, as well as
motherhood, always comes with both rights and responsibilities",
then as with placing both names on the birth certificate, the
costs should be shared to agenda the above.
(6) To start a fresh or to enable clients
of the previous two systems to apply to C-MEC. I would have thought
by now that it can be clearly seen that one of the greatest problems
arising with the introduction of CS2 was that everyone in CSCS
thought that they would be rolled into CS2 on day one. This is
a political decision and not one that should be floored again
as per above.
(7) The legacy of debt. Would it not be better
to enable people to reduce the "penalty assessments"
to full maintenance assessments on an actual basis within the
law? Whilst I understand the re-valuation of the debt from £1.3
billion to £0.5 billion is a quick fix I do not agree that
this will serve the mothers well.
(8) Parting couples with one child each,
by agreement should be allowed to have a private agreement underlined
by legislation, which precludes them from going to C-MEC.
(9) On page 66, paragraph 4.28, I am somewhat
perturbed at the lack of joined up thinking when a "child"
can at age 17 drive a car, and at 17-18 join the armed forces
and fight for this country and get married at 16, that we now
want to re-define the definition of "a qualifying child"
for C-MEC purposes only, to include "19 year olds in full-time
non-advanced education".
(10) On page 76, table 5.1, "sanctions
imposed on non-resident parents". I would pose the question,
that are we really proposing the suggestions within the White
Paper for tougher enforcement for such a small number of individuals
as highlighted on that page. I find the proposals for short-circuiting,
charging orders and liability orders to be very un-satisfactory.
I do understand that the above table is just the tip of the current
ice berg, and that the self-employed are difficult to deal with,
however if the system was seen to be fair and clear in its interpretation,
then I am sure it would be more acceptable by the above individuals.
(11) Is it always to be assumed, that in
practice the sole responsibility of the father is to pay the mother
for the up bringing of the child/children? Should we not for the
benefit of society try to foster a morally based acceptance of
joint moral and financial responsibility of both biological for
the child/children?
January 2007
| 
