Child maintenance and financial responsibility
Publication today of a DWP study of child maintenance arrangements raises some interesting and rarely discussed questions about the financial responsibility of parents towards their children after separation.
Findings from a study of child maintenance arrangements, a survey of 926 families with a child maintenance interest was undertaken by the National Centre for Social Research in 2008, prior to the formation of the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission. Findings from the study show that, in the cases where there was no child maintenance arrangement, ‘the most common explanation was that the parent with care did not want any contact with the non-resident parent (33%).’
The Commission has three core functions. The first of these is ‘to promote the financial responsibility that parents have for their children’. Its website states ‘the new system of child maintenance is all about ensuring that parents who live apart understand their responsibilities and take appropriate action to provide financially for their children.’ But, does the Commission or, indeed, anyone else consider the responsibility to receive to be as great as the responsibility to pay?
The Chair of the Commission, Janet Paraskeva, was reported in The Times as wanting the organisation ‘to help to transform attitudes towards parental responsibility, and intends to start with the next generation of fathers. Under her plans, teenage boys will be taught there is no escape from maintenance payments if they father a child.’
The Times goes on to say that the Commission is working with the (then) Department of Children Schools and Families to ensure that this is included in the PSHE curriculum. Ms Paraskeva is quoted as saying ‘When mums and dads are together they look after children together. If something happens, the non-resident parent still bears that responsibility and that includes financial responsibility, even in cases where there is no contact.’
A quick look through the newspapers or online will also quickly demonstrate that the whole debate around child maintenance is framed in the same way. ‘Non resident parents’ (always fathers) are avoiding their responsibilities to provide financially for their children and ‘parents with care’ (always mums) are going without in order to keep the wolf from the door.
And it is absolutely true that some fathers don’t provide financially for their children and some mothers are going without to keep the wolf from the door. But, if both parents are responsible for providing financially for their children, then the question has to be asked whether one parent has the right to deny their children financial support simply because they choose not to have anything to do with their child’s other parent?
It seems to me that the debate around child maintenance needs to be far more grown up and far less spiteful. The ending of a relationship is almost always painful and difficult. Both mums and dads need to be helped through the transitions that accompany separation in ways that reduce anxiety and anger. And the artificial division of parents into PWC and NRP with only one being assessed for their ability to contribute to a child’s financial wellbeing needs to be ended.
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.
About Admin
Child maintenance and financial responsibility
08/07/2010 Leave a comment
Publication today of a DWP study of child maintenance arrangements raises some interesting and rarely discussed questions about the financial responsibility of parents towards their children after separation.
Findings from a study of child maintenance arrangements, a survey of 926 families with a child maintenance interest was undertaken by the National Centre for Social Research in 2008, prior to the formation of the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission. Findings from the study show that, in the cases where there was no child maintenance arrangement, ‘the most common explanation was that the parent with care did not want any contact with the non-resident parent (33%).’
The Commission has three core functions. The first of these is ‘to promote the financial responsibility that parents have for their children’. Its website states ‘the new system of child maintenance is all about ensuring that parents who live apart understand their responsibilities and take appropriate action to provide financially for their children.’ But, does the Commission or, indeed, anyone else consider the responsibility to receive to be as great as the responsibility to pay?
The Chair of the Commission, Janet Paraskeva, was reported in The Times as wanting the organisation ‘to help to transform attitudes towards parental responsibility, and intends to start with the next generation of fathers. Under her plans, teenage boys will be taught there is no escape from maintenance payments if they father a child.’
The Times goes on to say that the Commission is working with the (then) Department of Children Schools and Families to ensure that this is included in the PSHE curriculum. Ms Paraskeva is quoted as saying ‘When mums and dads are together they look after children together. If something happens, the non-resident parent still bears that responsibility and that includes financial responsibility, even in cases where there is no contact.’
A quick look through the newspapers or online will also quickly demonstrate that the whole debate around child maintenance is framed in the same way. ‘Non resident parents’ (always fathers) are avoiding their responsibilities to provide financially for their children and ‘parents with care’ (always mums) are going without in order to keep the wolf from the door.
And it is absolutely true that some fathers don’t provide financially for their children and some mothers are going without to keep the wolf from the door. But, if both parents are responsible for providing financially for their children, then the question has to be asked whether one parent has the right to deny their children financial support simply because they choose not to have anything to do with their child’s other parent?
It seems to me that the debate around child maintenance needs to be far more grown up and far less spiteful. The ending of a relationship is almost always painful and difficult. Both mums and dads need to be helped through the transitions that accompany separation in ways that reduce anxiety and anger. And the artificial division of parents into PWC and NRP with only one being assessed for their ability to contribute to a child’s financial wellbeing needs to be ended.
Like this:
Filed under Comment