Why I support the proposed child maintenance reforms
The Government is currently consulting on proposed changes to the child maintenance system. The Green Paper, Strengthening families, promoting parental responsibility: the future of child maintenance, builds on changes that came about under the previous Government who introduced the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008.
At the heart of the proposed reforms is a philosophy that families, themselves, are best placed to determine what arrangements will work best in their circumstances and an intention to encourage the involvement of both parents in their children’s lives after divorce or separation. As well as promoting child-focussed, family based private agreements, the reforms would provide parents with an integrated model of relationship and family support services that would help them to deal with the practical and emotional issues that can get in the way of successful maintenance arrangements.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the proposed reforms have created a storm of protest from, amongst others, single parent organisations, poverty campaigners, the TUC and the Church of England. But I firmly believe that it is right to support families to work together to reach agreements that are in the best interests of their children and to see child maintenance as one of a range of joint responsibilities that parents have after divorce or separation.
Much of the attention that has surrounded the publication of the Green Paper has concerned the introduction of charges for use of the statutory scheme. This attention has largely been driven by organisations that advocate on behalf of lone parents who, in keeping with past campaigns around child maintenance, have portrayed the introduction of charges as a child poverty issue.
Whilst the proposed changes to child maintenance that require primary legislation are contained with the Welfare Reform Bill, it is important to recognise that child maintenance is not a welfare benefit, nor is it a child poverty issue. Child maintenance is essentially a parenting decision. It is about how both parents will continue to discharge their responsibility for their children after they divorce or separate.
It is argued that upfront charging will reduce the numbers of parents who use the statutory scheme and, therefore, the numbers of parents with effective arrangements in place. I would point to the evidence provided by Sir David Henshaw, in his 2006 report Recovering child support: routes to responsibility, that:
‘Parents who are able to should be encouraged and supported to make their own arrangements. Such arrangements tend to result in higher satisfaction and compliance and allow individual circumstances to be reflected.’
His recommendation that the government should encourage parents to make their own private arrangements was, therefore, based firmly on the evidence that these produce better outcomes and greater compliance than the statutory system and that, as a result, more children would benefit from effective maintenance arrangements not fewer.
Sir David also identified that charging would:
‘contribute to the objectives of the new system by incentivising private arrangements, which can be more successful, helping child welfare through increased compliance…’
Charging to use the statutory child maintenance system, therefore, provides an incentive for parents who are divorcing or separating to consider the alternatives to the statutory scheme.
Of course it is necessary to ensure that those charges should not make the statutory scheme so expensive as to effectively remove it as a choice for those parents who may need it but are financially disadvantaged and, for that reason, the Centre for Separated Families is proposing that the government should consider introducing a sliding scale of upfront application charges for poorer parents who are not in receipt of qualifying benefits.
Much has been made of the proposals to charge parents as a contribution to the ongoing costs to the state of collecting and enforcing payments. It has been argued that this, too, will reduce the number of effective maintenance arrangements and will significantly contribute to child poverty. But, at the lower end of the proposed percentage charges, 16% of Parents With Care would pay no more than 35p per week (that’s less than the cost of three standard SMS text messages) and 40% of parents with care would pay no more than 70p per week. If the Parent With Care didn’t prevent the money being paid through the Maintenance Direct system, even this modest amount wouldn’t be payable.
The Government’s approach of viewing child maintenance, not in isolation, but one of a range of issues that families must deal with as they go through the difficult process of divorce or separation is not only sensible but forward thinking and builds on Henshaw’s findings of 2006. Its drive to promote private child focussed, family based maintenance agreements should, I feel, be welcomed by anyone who’s primary concern is the welfare of children rather than the rights of parents.
Advertisement
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.
About Admin
Why I support the proposed child maintenance reforms
02/04/2011 Leave a Comment
The Government is currently consulting on proposed changes to the child maintenance system. The Green Paper, Strengthening families, promoting parental responsibility: the future of child maintenance, builds on changes that came about under the previous Government who introduced the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008.
At the heart of the proposed reforms is a philosophy that families, themselves, are best placed to determine what arrangements will work best in their circumstances and an intention to encourage the involvement of both parents in their children’s lives after divorce or separation. As well as promoting child-focussed, family based private agreements, the reforms would provide parents with an integrated model of relationship and family support services that would help them to deal with the practical and emotional issues that can get in the way of successful maintenance arrangements.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the proposed reforms have created a storm of protest from, amongst others, single parent organisations, poverty campaigners, the TUC and the Church of England. But I firmly believe that it is right to support families to work together to reach agreements that are in the best interests of their children and to see child maintenance as one of a range of joint responsibilities that parents have after divorce or separation.
Much of the attention that has surrounded the publication of the Green Paper has concerned the introduction of charges for use of the statutory scheme. This attention has largely been driven by organisations that advocate on behalf of lone parents who, in keeping with past campaigns around child maintenance, have portrayed the introduction of charges as a child poverty issue.
Whilst the proposed changes to child maintenance that require primary legislation are contained with the Welfare Reform Bill, it is important to recognise that child maintenance is not a welfare benefit, nor is it a child poverty issue. Child maintenance is essentially a parenting decision. It is about how both parents will continue to discharge their responsibility for their children after they divorce or separate.
It is argued that upfront charging will reduce the numbers of parents who use the statutory scheme and, therefore, the numbers of parents with effective arrangements in place. I would point to the evidence provided by Sir David Henshaw, in his 2006 report Recovering child support: routes to responsibility, that:
His recommendation that the government should encourage parents to make their own private arrangements was, therefore, based firmly on the evidence that these produce better outcomes and greater compliance than the statutory system and that, as a result, more children would benefit from effective maintenance arrangements not fewer.
Sir David also identified that charging would:
Charging to use the statutory child maintenance system, therefore, provides an incentive for parents who are divorcing or separating to consider the alternatives to the statutory scheme.
Of course it is necessary to ensure that those charges should not make the statutory scheme so expensive as to effectively remove it as a choice for those parents who may need it but are financially disadvantaged and, for that reason, the Centre for Separated Families is proposing that the government should consider introducing a sliding scale of upfront application charges for poorer parents who are not in receipt of qualifying benefits.
Much has been made of the proposals to charge parents as a contribution to the ongoing costs to the state of collecting and enforcing payments. It has been argued that this, too, will reduce the number of effective maintenance arrangements and will significantly contribute to child poverty. But, at the lower end of the proposed percentage charges, 16% of Parents With Care would pay no more than 35p per week (that’s less than the cost of three standard SMS text messages) and 40% of parents with care would pay no more than 70p per week. If the Parent With Care didn’t prevent the money being paid through the Maintenance Direct system, even this modest amount wouldn’t be payable.
The Government’s approach of viewing child maintenance, not in isolation, but one of a range of issues that families must deal with as they go through the difficult process of divorce or separation is not only sensible but forward thinking and builds on Henshaw’s findings of 2006. Its drive to promote private child focussed, family based maintenance agreements should, I feel, be welcomed by anyone who’s primary concern is the welfare of children rather than the rights of parents.
Like this:
Filed under Child maintenance, Comment, Support child maintenance reforms, Welfare Reform Bill 2011