Proposed changes to the CSA – a response

As readers of our blog will know by now, we are not scared to deal with some difficult issues. At OnlyDads we get used to the ongoing complaints both Mums and Dads have with the CSA. When Jo from 2stars and a swirl sent this post to us, we knew immediately that it had to be read by as many people as possible. Take a read and you will see why.


Background – What is happening?

Gingerbread Explains: The government wants more parents to ‘take responsibility’ for negotiating their own child maintenance arrangements.  From 2012 they are proposing to phase out the CSA, and create a new system run by the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission (CMEC).  Whilst some of the proposed changes may improve things, there are certain key proposals that we think will be deeply harmful to single parent families.

The key proposals are:

  • Single Parents will be charged an upfront fee of £100 to use the CMEC service, as well as an ongoing ‘collection charge’ of between 7% and 12% of their maintenance if they want their maintenance collected by the Commission.  For those on benefits the upfront fee will be £50, with £20 upfront and the rest in instalments.
  • Non-resident parents using the system will be charged between 15% and 20% on the maintenance they pay, unless they choose to make their CMEC payments directly to the parent with care (called ‘maintenance direct’) .  They will be able to do this even if the parent with care does not want them to.

My Response to the Green Paper

Strengthening Families, Promoting Parental Responsibility: The Future Of Child Maintenance

“The Coalition Government believes that the strategic vision for the child maintenance system should be one that places positive outcomes for families and children at its heart.  We want it to promote outcomes that are best for families and children, to deliver a more efficient administrative maintenance service for those who need it, and provide value for money for the taxpayer.”

Quote from the Green paper.

An outcome that is best for the child is to have all the money that is owing to them, not part of it as the government is taking a % of it.

“Our Programme for Government made clear our commitment to supporting and strengthening families. It is within the family that children develop – psychologically, physically, emotionally and socially – and this is the foundation for children reaching their potential. Children who grow up in stable families have a better start in life – from educational attainment to mental health to future employment prospects – than their peers who experience fractured, chaotic, or dysfunctional home environments. And it is not only individuals who benefit; there are economic and societal benefits when a supportive family environment in childhood is reflected in adulthood.”

Quote from the Green paper

How exactly do you think that reading  the section in bold make single parents feel? How do you think that single parents can make this right for their children? Should they either stay with a partner that is not suitable for a family environment (domestic violence, unfaithful, gambler, etc) or if single for reasons of death they should go out and find a new partner as quickly as they can so that they will make sure that their children have a better start in life.


Many will have a better, more stable, and happier life that if they had remained in what the government deems is a stable family.  Further on in the document it is stated that a stable family could be one where parents do not live together but both frequently see their children.  But again, what if this isn’t the scenario? Is a child doomed to a life of crime, bad health and unhappiness?

“For families, dealing with separation typically involves not just the practical issues of arranging assets, but the emotional and related issues that arise from dealing with such a significant life event. As such, families need support that meets their individual needs around separation, to enable them to adjust to new circumstances.”

Quote from the Green paper.

In my experience trying to deal with the emotional issues and the financial issues together causes more problems.  It is very easy for the financial issues to be about control of the ex-partner – on both sides.  That is why for so many having an independent 3rd party able to deal with the financial side means that they can in fact deal with the emotional side and arrangements of access etc.

If the independent 3rd party is able to deem what is ‘fair’ this means that it is not either party demanding.

“We believe that families themselves are best placed to determine what arrangements will work best for them. Underlying our approach is the assumption that government should use mechanisms to encourage and support parents to:

  • fulfil their responsibilities as parents in terms of continuing involvement in their children’s lives and through the payment of child maintenance; and
  • make family-based arrangements concerning these issues wherever possible, which is better for children, rather than relying on government services to step in and administer these arrangements on parents’ behalf.”

Quote from the Green paper

At a time of family breakdown it is generally an extremely difficult and raw time to be able to deal with things. Is this saying that if families use the CSA they are not fulfilling their responsibilities as parents? I would argue that when all other avenues have been tried that using a government body in order to get your child the money they are owed is fulfilling your parental responsibility.

“We want to encourage collaboration wherever possible, while recognising this will not always be possible and that statutory services will be there for the most vulnerable people in society. We consider in this chapter not only the specific reforms to the child maintenance system, but also invite comment about how these proposals could be modified to best align with the wider support available.”

Quote from the Green paper.

This paragraph acknowledges that not everyone will be able to come to their own agreements, it agrees that there will be a statutory service for the most vulnerable people in society. I feel it is very important to emphasis here that they are willing to intervene for the most vulnerable people, for a charge.

So if you are vulnerable you will be able to get assistance, but it will cost your child a % of the maintenance that is paid to them.  The Government will charge the most vulnerable in society. Are the people who don’t fit into the ideal of what a family is being punished?

Is this fair?  Or Right?

“By encouraging parents to make better choices and take responsibility through increasing consideration of family-based arrangements we will not only deliver better outcomes for families, but also, in addition to efficiency savings in the statutory service, significantly reduce the financial burden on the taxpayer.”

Quote from the Green paper.

Again the use of the word responsibility, so those who have to use the service are not taking responsibility and making a bad choice?

If the alternative is to get no money for their child, which is more responsible?

“Those who are leaving relationships where there has been violence or a risk to the child are also a group for whom we wish to tailor our proposals appropriately. As well as working directly with stakeholders, the Department will be working across government to ensure its approach in this area is fully consistent and builds on the Government’s strategic vision set out in ‘Call to End Violence against Women and Girls’ (25th November 2010). As part of this approach victims of domestic violence will be exempt from the application charge.”

Quote from the Green paper

But their child will still lose a % of every payment to them.

So victims of domestic violence will be exempt from the initial £100 charge but not from the on going charge of using the service.  How will the government decide who is a victim of domestic violence? From Womens Aid

“Only a minority of incidents of domestic violence are reported to the police, varying between 23% (Walby and Allen, 2004) and 35% (Home Office, 2002; see also British Crime Survey, 1998; Dodd, et al., 2004).”

This shows that for the majority of people who have suffered any form of domestic violence will not have a police report and for many women one of the ‘easiest’ forms of domestic violence to be a victim of is the hardest to prove; bullying and control.  This is where the perpetrator will use their control, over maintenance and if and when they choose to pay, leaving a victim with no choice but to use the service on behalf of their children.  But it is likely, unless they can prove they were a victim, that they will be charged both the £100 and on going % charge.


  • For the majority, if they could make their own arrangement away from statutory help, they would.  It would be a lot quicker and easier.
  • No one goes into a relationship expecting it to end in a mess.
  • If you want to support single parent families do not make more of them go into or deeper into poverty by taking even more money from them.
  • The paper has been written about parents taking responsibility for their children by working without support from statutory agencies for the financial part of separation, but it talks extensively about how it will offer a whole range of support for the other areas.  But for many families sorting out the financial part is the most difficult and stressful and in fact the part they need assistance with the most.
  • For many single parents not on benefit they are still on very low incomes, they are not on benefit as they are working hard for their child, but they will now have to find £100 to start the process.  Many will not be able to afford this as they have no savings, they live week to week and it will not be a luxury they can afford.
  • There is an assumption the whole way through the Green paper that if you cannot sort out maintenance payments without statutory help, then you are not taking responsibility for your child.

What next?

I emailed my MP James Duddridge using the template on Gingerbread, I also asked about the domestic violence issue, his response is below

When I read that reply I felt many things, mainly anger though.  I contacted Gingerbread to know that I got a reply and they advised me to keep going.So my next steps are to send the above responses to the green paper consultation team and email the Minister Maria Miller who is the Minister suggesting all of these changes. I am also hoping to meet with my MP to ask him not only about these proposed changes but what the Government feels they are doing to all the single parents out there and societies opinion of them.  I have a feeling he needs to be reminded of Gingerbreads other recent campaign Lose the Labels and You’re Brilliant.

Having what feels like a whole government against single parents, or parents that don’t fit into their ideal is in my opinion far from healthy.  How will it make all these children growing up in single parent families feel?  Like they are doomed?  It seems to be ignored that for many of us, we work hard to make sure that our children get a fantastic start in life, and as it is constantly in our faces about our children will be thugs/criminals/failures/unhappy/unhealthy we do everything in our power to make sure this doesn’t happen, to the point we are losing ourselves as people.

Or maybe this is just me.

If this makes any sense to you and you have even a few moment please see here how you can very simply email your MP.

About onlydads

Single Dad living near Totnes in Devon. I founded in 2007 and live with my daughters Priya, 14 and Anya 11. I write about single parenting, work, overcoming trials and tribulations and sometimes not overcoming trials and tribulations.
This entry was posted in Family life, Finance, bills and money, Guest posts. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Proposed changes to the CSA – a response

  1. Richard says:

    I am afraid as a non resident single Dad, I disagree with much of what Jo writes in this post. I think that children do have better life chances in stable family units, rather than in fractured dysfunctional relationships. This is not criticising single parents, its saying that conflict between parents has an impact on children – whether their confidence etc etc Seems pretty plain to me.
    I dont have a problem with the ridiculously expensive and bureaucratically incompetent CSA being forced to actually look at its value and raise money to fund itself from those that benefit from the service rather than have an open cheque from the taxpayer.
    Lastly I think that the discussions around forcing couples to initially go to mediation, rather than straight to lawyers and the need to pay a fee up front to access the CSA will stop people triggering the CSA without having first tried to negotiate an agreement, which doesnt cost the state anything but puts the onus on us parents as responsible adults to seek to resolve our affairs.

    • I 100% agree that children are best raised in happy stable homes, for many parents this means a one parent family home. Many parents make the choice to leave a partner to give their children more chances in life to be a happy, confident, loud, laughing, child that if they stayed as a family that child would not have had.
      And again I agree, the CSA is not effective, I know this and there has to be a better way, but charging people who have no other way to get money for their child – is that really the only way? Knowing the so many people are going to be put off claiming and thus reducing the cases, is that a solution?
      Yes of course there will be people who use the CSA as an unfair threat in the ‘game’ of separation, but the majority of people use the CSA as it is their only option. And many people also try the non-CSA route first only to be let down with payments and false promises.
      Beleive me I am a responsible adult,a responsible parent as I am trying to get money for my child to give them a better life and keep us out of poverty. Sadly the other half of my situation doesn’t quite feel that way, so how exactly does that make me irresponsible if I can’t force him to agree and pay alone?

  2. CoffeeCurls says:

    URGH! This makes me so cross! This was what I was discussing on the radio the other day (don’t worry, no one heard it!).

    It’s outrageous to be expected to pay for a service that is as woefully inadequate as the CSA. To then have to had over a % of any monies paid is disgusting – that’s our chidren’s money.

    Some one I am quite close to angers me often by blithely intimating that single parent families are ‘common’ and that the children are in some way ‘undesirable’ for their child to hang out with. I bite my tongue.

    There is a facebook group set up about this:

    By a lady on twitter

    Great blog Bob x

  3. summerlandc says:

    Brilliant post Jo.
    I don’t use the CSA, my partner lives overseas, he pays maintenance that we agreed but it comes in fits and starts.
    What does strike me in your post is the bureaucratic language that serves to write off single parent families as the incorrect model for parenting.
    Of course children do better with a stable home life, but where does it say that a stable home life HAS to constitute a couple? My child has a stable home life, me, her grandmother close by, an outstanding child-minder and a close knit group of friends around us. It would be lovely if her dad was close by but he isn’t, this doesn’t mean my child is disadvantaged in anything other than her relationship with him.
    By the same token many children with parents that live together do have chaotic home lives, poverty of expectation and poverty of opportunity.
    Single parent families, mostly headed by women, are financially some of the most disadvantaged in the country, this proposal will serve to disadvantage them further.
    Maintenance money is for the care of the child, why should the child be penalised for their parents’ inability to reach a consensus?

  4. So potentially you could have warring parents deciding what the maintenance should be?!
    In my experience that can’t be good. Partners ex always complained she wasn’t getting enough so when we got married she went to CSA & unluckily for her the payments reduced.
    Now she has new partner she tells child the money from his dad pays for her car!!! I think in this situation the payment to parent with care should stop & it should go in trust for the child.

  5. Beki Davies says:

    Every case invovles individuals a broad brush approach will never work. There is enough heartache, stress & upset through a marital / partnership breakdown. The government is duty bound to provide a service that supports the easiest and fairest solution. If separation (in whatever format) was a business & industry critical issue (I am not suggesting that it is), but there are any number of well funded, regulated and respected organisations e.g. ACAS that enable both parties to have the best result. “Enable” being the key word.
    CSA has always been woefully inadequate – that is down to the management of it as an organisation – changing what is already broken aint going to improve anything. You also cannot change human nature, just through different rules.
    As alot of people, I still do not receive regular payments for my son. I doubt I ever will. That makes my life very challenging – none of the changes proposed will improve my situation, in fact they will make it worse.
    We have to raise awareness & fight these changes. Surely the start point is the government needs to speak to those who have been through the system – alternatively Mr / Mrs / Miss MP pick up the phone call the CSA and experience it as a customer!

  6. I’ve been surfing online more than three hours today, yet I
    never found any interesting article like yours. It is
    pretty worth enough for me. Personally, if all web owners
    and bloggers made good content as you did, the internet will be much more useful than ever before.

  7. Hi, Neat post. There is a problem with your website in web explorer, might test
    this? IE nonetheless is the marketplace chief and a
    big element of folks will leave out your magnificent writing because of this problem.

  8. I’ll immediately take hold of your rss as I can’t find your email subscription
    link or e-newsletter service. Do you’ve any? Please
    let me know so that I could subscribe. Thanks.|

  9. Select an automated system which will offer you
    life time updates for a single payment to make it easy on your
    pocket. If you are looking for a forex trend indicators then there are many that you can use.
    The first is that the Forex market is very volatile.

  10. Apparently Piperine does this by affecting the
    production of hormones like chemicals that regulate energy balance.
    Vitamins and anti-oxidants are located in just about all foods that are consumed in a healthful eating plan.
    However, in certain dishes, the fruits rind is
    used as an ingredient.

  11. An outstanding share! I have just forwarded this onto
    a friend who has been doing a little research on this.
    And he actually bought me lunch due to the fact that I stumbled upon it
    for him… lol. So let me reword this…. Thanks for the
    meal!! But yeah, thanx for spending some time to discuss this
    topic here on your internet site.

  12. Hey there! Quick question that’s completely off topic. Do you know how to make your site mobile friendly?
    My web site looks weird when browsing from my apple
    iphone. I’m trying to find a template or plugin that might be able to correct this problem.
    If you have any suggestions, please share. Thank you!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s