DWP consultation on CMS - extra 2% cost on us coming down the line

[bakedapple]

Following on from the CM debate in Feb, DWP have started a consultation on the CMS process.
Annoyingly, the questions don't touch on the main issues highlighted in the CM debate that the current process encourages the race for kids, enables a wedge through the children's relationship with their father purely for the finance gain of the mother and, with the current cost of living, can create a poverty trap for the non resident parent. There is no mention as to what the future formula should include (i.e. both parent's income).

Instead, the focus is:
The Government is considering a fee structure of 2% for compliant paying parents, 20% for non-compliant paying parents and exempting those paying via a deduction from benefit order from the non-compliance fee.

Child Maintenance: Improving the collection and transfer of payments

www.gov.uk

Microsoft Forms

forms.office.com

 

[Roblox]

Thanks for sharing

Yes frustrating there's no real suggestion of modifications aside from looking at the calculations to presumably bring in more income streams.

The idea of cms doing all transfers worries me given the stories of those using collect and pay not receiving the maintenance. If it all goes via cms then that triples the admin presumably if a third are roughly on collect and pay at present.

Seems to be a way of raising coffers for a service that is financially struggling by introducing an administrator fee for all.

 

[Roblox]

I'm a bit worried about the 2% for receiving parents as if that is the same percentage regardless of whether the old direct pay or collect and pay it will encourage bad behaviours. Even if CMS administer it all.

 

[bakedapple]

Agreed.

I've been thinking a bit more about this:

1. If more people are encouraged to have their own arrangements, then less people using CMS. Therefore, a web portal could be a means to achieve this.
However, for this to work, both the receiving and NRP parents needs to want to use the portal - in most cases, it is the receiving parent that applies to CMS.

2. There is a trend for government agencies to cover their costs, so a fee is aligned with that trend.
As the NRP, I'd be happy to cut CMS out of the loop, so why should I pay 2% if my ex wants to stay with CMS. The cost should entirely sit with whichever parents wants to use CMS - unless there are proven allegations of domestic abuse.

3. I would expect someone who uses the portal for a family based arrangement not to be subject to the 2% tax - only those that want the CMS to be involved. That said, what happens if the portal gives the wrong answer - what is my recourse and do I have to pay 2% for them to sort out their errors?

4. If I have to pay for a service, then the government should not be the only monopoly on providing the service. A mediator should be able to provide a legally binding service as well.

5. If I have to pay through CMS going forwards, will they have accountability to refund me if there are errors in their calculation, irrespective of the receiving parents' ability to return the money?

6. What about data security - the government has a track record of getting things wrong here.

7. The current formula is based on the NRP's income only as, 25 years ago, most divorcing parents only had one bread winner. Now, the opposite is true. Furthermore, it doubles the workload of the CMS to look at 2 incomes instead of 1. With a computerised system, there should be no reason not to include both parents' income in a new updated formula. This will encourage many more divorcing couples to a 50:50 arrangement, as there is no longer a massive financial incentive to be the resident parent. This will reduce the number of people using CMS and thereby the operational costs of the agency.

8. Ultimately, the best way of reducing the cost of running the CMS is to correct the default child arrangements to become 50:50 by law unless it can be proven otherwise that it is not in the child's best interests.

 

[Ash]

The whole system is about making Dads pay to avoid Gov paying benefits. A very unfair system if you can't afford to pay (not to mention not seeing your kids and having to pay for court).

 

[Roblox]

@bakedapple point 7 is spot on.

I've responded to the consultation and made this point. The main issue is the current system encourages the receiving parent to try and limit the other parents time with child. There's no reward for good behaviour just punishment for bad.

 

[Roblox]

I've actually wondered if there should be set amounts for child maintenance. As under the current system a higher earning is effectively punished as there's more incentive for an ex to withhold the child.

 

[Ash]

Yes there should be a set amount - or at least a "cap". Anyone not earning enough to meet the set amount or cap it could be assessed on a percentage of earnings as now. And yes indeed there is an incentive for ex's to withold with higher earners.

 

[Nanaforsonsjustice]

I think it’s unfair that NRP, mostly dads, have to pay child maintenance and this money is not deducted from the RP, normally mothers, universal credit. This means there is no incentive for the mother to get a job especially if she is paid well from the child maintenance. My son pays nearly £400 a month and the father of her older child pays £200 a month, the mother claims universal credit and doesn’t work, and has in the region of £2500 a month, why would she want to work when she gets that much. Child maintenance is also one of the main reasons she won’t agree to overnight contact or 50/50 shared care, because she would lose to much money.

I agree 50/50 shared care should be the starting point unless proven that there are safeguarding concerns. This would go along way in preventing cases going to court.

 

[Ash]

It would indeed and it’s self defeating having CMS and a high court load, but the U.K. Gov seems in the Stone Age. The topic seems to fall on deaf ears. But if people keep writing to their MP it might get debated in Parliament.

Another problem is the strong VAWG policy each Gov has, and the MP’s who feel strongly about it and they interlink that topic with family court.

That was the reason 50/50 failed in 2012/14 after the family justice review. Apparently a board of women said it would give children to abusers.

That’s not good enough. Abuse could still be dealt with in certain situations but for the rest an automatic 50/50 would indeed prevent most people having to go to court.

Their view seems to be that most couples would agree things amicably if there’s no abuse. That is ridiculous as post divorce a lot of couples hate each other and some act vindictively or for revenge. Plus of course the CMS incentive.

I have no idea how we get through to a Gov - at the moment petitions aren’t even open yet (Gov ones) since the election. I’ll start a new petition when it’s possible. If it gets enough signatures it gets debated in Parliament.

However the wording needs to be spot on for petitions and sometimes there are some where it isn’t spot on and they don’t get taken seriously.

 

[bakedapple]

agreed - for it to work, it can't be instructions to judges that it should be 50:50 but a legal equality established in law. That way, on separation, it is clear to all parties what their legal rights and responsibilities are, rather than the current of grab the kids and let the other party fight it out in court - if the dad then gets lucky, then he might get something close to 50:50 but along the way you keep the house, several years of CM and all the CB. The adage that possessions is 9/10ths of the law sadly holds completely true here.

 

[Ash]

The upshot is - there are a bunch of feminists who have the ear of government and it goes way beyond arguments about risk of domestic abuse - it is simply anathema to them that a Mother shouldn’t take priority. I have always found that a confusing and contradictory idea of feminism as it’s supposed to be about equality!