FOOL SCHOOL
Child Support

November 21, 2003

Did you know that there are now an estimated 1.6 million lone parents in the UK? It's a lot, isn't it? And 90% of them are lone mothers, about half of whom are on benefit of some kind.

It's no wonder the Government has been trying, and often failing, to get fathers to provide some form of support for their former family.

It's been 10 years since the Child Support Act was introduced and it's been accepted for a very long time that the whole thing was a complete mess. The Bill was whizzed through Parliament with only the skeleton principle -- that absent parents should financially support their children -- being debated. It was left to the civil servants to sort out the details and being lovers of red tape, the result was a bureaucratic nightmare. So much so that the Child Support Agency spent more time dealing with re-assessments and appeals than chasing those who were in arrears or refusing to pay. 

In March 2003 new laws governing the way child support is calculated were introduced. The system has been greatly simplified, but whether it's for the better won't be known until the changes are actually implemented and individuals start feeling the effect of the new method of calculation and the penalties for not complying.

Key Changes

Briefly, absent fathers (and, let's face it, we mostly mean fathers when we talk about absent parents) will be required to pay 15% of their net income for a single child, 20% for two and 25% for three children or more. The maximum income that will be taken into account will be capped at £2,000 net income a week. If the father has a new family then similar allowances will be made for each child in his second family, including stepchildren. Rates of 15%, 20% and 25% will be deducted from the non-resident parent's net income and only the balance will be subject to the standard rates for the first family.

Those who don't or won't pay risk losing their driving licence and if they lie or refuse to provide information, they could be fined up to £1,000. Late payments will also lead to fines.

Until now fathers who lived abroad could not be chased, but the new law now ensures that non-resident parents who work for a UK-based employer can still be held accountable.

Potential Problems

The new rules are certainly much easier to understand, but there are some caveats that have been introduced which are likely to cause as many rows between parents as the Act of 1991 managed to do.

For a start, the income of the resident mother will not be taken into consideration, nor will that of a new partner. You might think that's fair enough -- just because the mother earns a fair whack, that doesn't negate the responsibility owed by the absent father. However, the lone mother could earn huge amounts each year and still demand, and be entitled to, up to 25% of the absent father's income.

Equally, the father could be a millionaire with a vast income but will never be required to pay more than £26,000 a year even if he can afford much more.

What's worse is that these maintenance payments can be reduced on a sliding scale depending on how often that absent father sees the child. For example, if the child stays for 175 nights or more throughout the year, the payments could be halved. Again, that's fair enough on the face of -- it if the father is looking after the child for half the year, then he should only pay half. But what if the resident mother can't afford to lose the full maintenance payment? It would be in her interests to deny contact and in his to pursue it. Won't that lead to yet more arguments between the parents?

These factors also mean that, if both parents shared residence of the children AND earned exactly the same amount, the parent regarded as "absent" would still have to pay the parent with the legal Residence Order.

It seems to me that the new laws might cause just as much resentment as the previous law. And while there's no doubt that changes to the Child Support laws are long overdue and should improve things for the lone mother who needs financial help from the father, the new system is not exactly encouraging for fathers who already do their duty.

Still, at least it will be transparent and easier to implement. This in turn should free up CSA resources sufficiently so they can focus on those fathers who flatly refuse to face up to their responsibilities.