Government announces child maintenance ‘clampdown’

money

The government has announced a new measure to prevent parents avoiding child maintenance payments.

At the moment, child maintenance payments can only be claimed from a bank or building society account held in the paying parent’s sole name. As a result, some parents who do not wish to make the required payments will put their money in a joint account with a new partner.

This week, the Department for Work and Pensions announced that a new law will soon be introduced which will allow child maintenance debts to be taken from joint accounts as well. They claim that closing this particular loophole could lead to more than £390,000 in additional maintenance being collected from around the country.

Caroline Dinenage MP, the Minister for Family Support, Housing and Child Maintenance, said that while only “a small minority of parents try to cheat their way out of paying towards their children”, the new measure would be “another tool to tackle those who do”.

The new system is expected to go into effect early next year.

Photo by William Grootonk via Flickr under a Creative Commons licence.

Stowe Family Law Web Team

View more from this author

15 comments

Helen Dudden - October 31, 2017 at 7:28am

To maintain your child is very important to the child and it’s future.
I believe in a slightly different approach to the mental health welfare of children caught up in relationship breakdowns. I’ve seen the damage caused by ignoring the needs of the child to know the absent parent. I believe a child has that right to meet their parent should they wish it or not. We are talking alienation, this I believe is another form.
I also believe, if there is no legal issue preventing this happening, it should be a addition to law.
When as parents we produce our children, we have a life long responsibility.
As well as no blame divorce, I believe in marriage this I feel could be a step in making that child’s view of marriage better for the future.
This idea probably seems as ridiculous as the early comments and the protests on parental alienation or no blame divorce, but things do move on, that’s the miracle of law in this country.

Andy - October 31, 2017 at 3:16pm

What planet are you on.. Wake up. It don’t happen that way..

FATHER - November 6, 2017 at 11:08pm

I notified my ex that I was applying for shared parenting/equal access time that would have reduced my maintenance to NIL and was immediately hit with a criminal accusation that has led to me being alienated from my child for two years.
Yet my ex is still allowed to make a claim for maintenance against me and there is nothing I can do about it. So much for a fair system that is child focused. I am just a cash cow for my ex to milk dry.

Andrew - October 31, 2017 at 9:33am

Watch out for the HRA challenge from the second wife or partner whose money has been (mis-)appropriated to pay someone else’s debt.

Stuart - October 31, 2017 at 10:45am

What the Minister for Family Support, Housing and Child Maintenance never said…” a small minority of parents cheat their way to higher CMS payments by preventing their children’s other parent from having a relationship with them, creating alienation and being financially rewarded for doing so. We will create measures to ensure this never happens again”.

JamesB - October 31, 2017 at 12:00pm

If men are expected to get a signature in advance of touching (or having sex with) a woman, which is how it’s going (example knee touch fifteen years ago is news) then perhaps women should be expected to have a signature of consent from a man to be able to claim child maintenance from him.

Indeed, disregard the consent to sex thing, apart from rape, women should be expected to have a signature of consent from a man to be able to claim child maintenance from him.

JamesB - October 31, 2017 at 12:06pm

Twenty years of massive child maintenance payments for a one night stand where woman said don’t worry about condom as she’s on the pill is dodgy and pushing it. Government should pay for children of single parents.trying to nail the spermicide donors is morally well dodgy. Naturally it should be up to the fathers how much they pay to support their children and government has no right to intervene if parents are or aren’t together. If they aren’t they should pay support. Women getting child maintenance for bad behaviour encourages bad behaviour.

JamesB - October 31, 2017 at 12:09pm

Oh, going for it disenfranchised the non resident parent from society also as is unfair and they become deadbeat Dad’s etc which I’d unfair. The whole thing is unfair and cms/cmec/csa/cmoptions should be scrapped and the matter to courts to decide.

Andy - October 31, 2017 at 3:12pm

Yet again upper authorities award generous non taxable payments to Golddiger mothers at Kicked out fathers cost..
In reality the system that is in place and awarded benefits are now pushed to the Father to pay..
I laugh at the comments some idiot mothers have commented also Gingerbread head of policy says more should be done to get payments for children..
So how much more do you take from the PAYING Father until bleeding him dry..
Oh and don’t forget if you do meet a new partner don’t have a joint account, also, off shore account if you can get one then it’s not under any scrutiny from the income tangy CMS..
Just a point. Does the receiving parent have to disclose cash payments as income or is this just a notherway to say its cash jobs but hidden behind current policy..
I laugh at the so called supporting Father groups where are they in the fight to get equality.. For Fathers who now have quarter of earned salary robbed to support a Golddiger mother…
Ginger bread and Mums net are the real driving force and of course subsidised by Government for the cause… Any subsidy for the Father or are we treated as the silent victim…
Yes pay a equal share but not one sided share..
Looks the suicide and inaccuracy of the current system and if they are wrong such as the CMS then no answer or explanation is given… Typical two faced system that was imposed on the back of the old costly system.. Some one has to pay for it and guess what it is the Father.. Funny that…
Gingerbread and alike are a lager version of mothers meeting and then push ideas through because the divorces family is the fathers fault… With lies to suit.

JamesB - October 31, 2017 at 8:49pm

Yes, the signature of consent to have sex by both partners. Then the signature to have child signed by both partners also. Tbh no place for government this siding with dodgy single Mums as they shouted loudest as they are feminist bigmouths who are probably lesbians and man hating anyway. Strange how government are affected by special interest groups (in this case feminists as other chap says above) a bit like the thick of it. Not good that, should be better Government rather that sticking it to the person not in the room when the rules were drawn up. Loads of women saying the men should pay. Ridiculous. 50% of single parents don’t get any child maintenance from the other parent and that number is rising, why? Because its not natural to expect parent to pay for other person to steal your children and bring them up while you live in worse conditions elsewhere.

Government, if you are listening, pay up, or leave alone, your intervention is counter-productive and promoting single parenthood.

JamesB - October 31, 2017 at 8:52pm

Its the sense of entitlement from these mothers who kick out the Dads and expect money for doing so that really pisses me off and the Government for falling for it, put them in poor house if they ask for child maintenance outside of court instead.

JamesB - November 1, 2017 at 12:49am

Child maintenance under the csa/cmec/cmoptions/cms was setup under incorrect assumption that single parenthood on the state is due to fathers shirking their parental responsibility, where if a broad brush approach is appropriate, and it isn’t, it’s more often mothers shirking their spousal responsibilities and kicking MEN out or running from them. Putting the csa in encouraged women to chuck their men. Bad law pushed by unempathetic people with insufficient consultation or knowledge about the subject. Unfortunately like a lot of bad government in recent years. Like forcing mothers of young children to work is dodgy too. Seems plan is to live apart and import the next generation.

JamesB - November 1, 2017 at 5:07pm

On this subject, the juice isn’t worth the squeeze. By a long way.

Andy - November 10, 2017 at 10:24am

Just an update.. Anyone received the CMS calculation.. I have and they say I earn £733.. Per week.. Funny that as I do not… My p60 as of 2016to 2017 says less.. I CHALLENGED CMS and they said we don’t go from P 60 figures.. So how the shit do they get a figure from..
Funny eh

Joesph Smith - November 11, 2017 at 1:01pm

If you have no rights to your child you shouldn’t have to pay, the whole system is a joke, the quicker am out this country the better

Leave a comment