Family based arrangements last longer and are best for children

Ministers from Maria Miller onwards have persisted with the pernicious lie that “family based arrangements” are best for children, and that mothers who apply to the statutory child support system are not acting in their children’s best interests because most fathers would pay if the arrangement was voluntary and, in Christine Skinner’s parlance, “reciprocal”.

It goes without saying that separated parents who are able to remain civil and cooperative are better for children than separated parents who despise each other or who have little or no contact. Of course, it is better for children if child maintenance is resolved amicably. But the Child Support Agency was introduced in 1993 precisely because over half of separated fathers have consistently refused to pay any contribution towards their children’s upbringing.

From 1993 to 2008, mothers in receipt of welfare benefits were compelled to apply to the Child Support Agency, whether they wanted to or not. But from October 2008, mothers on benefits were free to apply to the CSA, or make private arrangements with fathers if they could, or simply go without any financial support if they could not.

In 2008 the Labour Government published DWP Research Report 503, Relationship separation and support study, which the Coalition Government would deliberately and repeatedly misrepresent three years later in 2011. Chapter 7, the crucial section, says: “51 per cent [of parents with care with CSA cases] said making a private arrangement would cause conflict or arguments.”

On 2 December 2009 the Child Maintenance Commissioner, Stephen Geraghty, told the Work and Pensions Committee that:

“Of people in the statutory scheme, currently about 27% do not pay in a quarter, about 20% do not pay in a year and about 8% do not pay anything, but most of those, the ones who are in the statutory scheme, we do get money and that is within the period and, eventually, if people have got assets or income, we do get it. Clearly, it would be much better if we got it when it was actually due, but with the people we are talking about, that gets very difficult. In the market as a whole only about 47% of people are paying.”

It was simply a lie that most mothers used the Child Support Agency as the “default option” without trying to resolve matters amicably with fathers first.

Patrick Parkinson is a marriage-obsessed academic heavily involved with the Religious Right Australian Christian Lobby, close to Iain Duncan Smith and Samantha Callan, who was a consultant for the 2009 Centre for Social Justice family law report, “Every Family Matters”. In January 2008 The Times reported that:

“The architect of Australia’s acclaimed child maintenance system is so alarmed at Britain’s plans to overhaul the Child Support Agency that he has flown to London to voice his concern. The new system, which encourages separating couples to reach their own arrangements voluntarily, leaving a pared-down agency to deal with “hard cases”, means that many children will get far less than they deserve from their absent father, he has said. Patrick Parkinson, who designed the Australian model, said that the decision to scrap the CSA and replace it with a much smaller operation was the result of a “nervous breakdown” among senior politicians after years of technological and administrative disasters, but it was highly flawed. “There is a great dangers that child maintenance in Britain will now be seen as voluntary, that nonresident parents can decide whether or not they want to support their children,” he told The Times. “The second danger is that the resident parent, usually the mother, ends up acquiescing to the first offer made [by the father] on the grounds that at least they will get it.”

So even that arch-conservative Christian, Patrick Parkinson, was warning the Labour Government back in 2008 that encouraging separated parents to make private arrangements would lead to less financial support going to children. And even that arch-conservative Christian, Lord Mackay, a former Chancellor under Margaret Thatcher and John Major, led a revolt in the House of Lords in 2012 over the proposal to charge mothers to deter them from using the statutory system. Iain Duncan Smith, Samantha Callan and Maria Miller knew their proposals would make single mothers and their children poorer.

For the extreme Religious Right led by CARE, material poverty is far less important than spiritual poverty. Fatherlessness, the overriding obsession of the Centre for Social Justice, is an affront to God. By making a generation of children poorer, they hope to set an example for future mothers - marry and stay married, or you and your children be damned. Frank Field, the Labour MP, ardent Christian, member of the Centre for Social Justice Advisory Council, and useful idiot for the British Religious Right, played a crucial role in the repeal of the Child Poverty Act 2010, with his “Independent Review on Poverty and Life Chances”, commissioned by Prime Minister, David Cameron.

Ministers from Maria Miller onwards have persisted with the pernicious lie that “family based arrangements” are best for children, and that mothers who apply to the statutory child support system are not acting in their children’s best interests because most fathers would pay if the arrangement was voluntary and, in Christine Skinner’s parlance, “reciprocal”.

It goes without saying that separated parents who are able to remain civil and cooperative are better for children than separated parents who despise each other or who have little or no contact. Of course, it is better for children if child maintenance is resolved amicably. But the Child Support Agency was introduced in 1993 precisely because over half of separated fathers have consistently refused to pay any contribution towards their children’s upbringing.

From 1993 to 2008, mothers in receipt of welfare benefits were compelled to apply to the Child Support Agency, whether they wanted to or not. But from October 2008, mothers on benefits were free to apply to the CSA, or make private arrangements with fathers if they could, or simply go without any financial support if they could not.

On 2 December 2009 the Child Maintenance Commissioner, Stephen Geraghty, told the Work and Pensions Committee that:

“Of people in the statutory scheme, currently about 27% do not pay in a quarter, about 20% do not pay in a year and about 8% do not pay anything, but most of those, the ones who are in the statutory scheme, we do get money and that is within the period and, eventually, if people have got assets or income, we do get it. Clearly, it would be much better if we got it when it was actually due, but with the people we are talking about, that gets very difficult. In the market as a whole only about 47% of people are paying.”

It was simply a lie that most mothers used the Child Support Agency as the “default option” without trying to resolve matters amicably with fathers first.

Patrick Parkinson is a marriage-obsessed academic heavily involved with the Religious Right Australian Christian Lobby, close to Iain Duncan Smith and Samantha Callan, who was a consultant for the 2009 Centre for Social Justice family law report, “Every Family Matters”. In January 2008 The Times reported that:

“The architect of Australia’s acclaimed child maintenance system is so alarmed at Britain’s plans to overhaul the Child Support Agency that he has flown to London to voice his concern. The new system, which encourages separating couples to reach their own arrangements voluntarily, leaving a pared-down agency to deal with “hard cases”, means that many children will get far less than they deserve from their absent father, he has said. Patrick Parkinson, who designed the Australian model, said that the decision to scrap the CSA and replace it with a much smaller operation was the result of a “nervous breakdown” among senior politicians after years of technological and administrative disasters, but it was highly flawed. “There is a great dangers that child maintenance in Britain will now be seen as voluntary, that nonresident parents can decide whether or not they want to support their children,” he told The Times. “The second danger is that the resident parent, usually the mother, ends up acquiescing to the first offer made [by the father] on the grounds that at least they will get it.”

So even that arch-conservative Christian, Patrick Parkinson, was warning the Labour Government back in 2008 that encouraging separated parents to make private arrangements would lead to less financial support going to children. And even that arch-conservative Christian, Lord Mackay, a former Chancellor under Margaret Thatcher and John Major, led a revolt in the House of Lords in 2012 over the proposal to charge mothers to deter them from using the statutory system. Iain Duncan Smith, Samantha Callan and Maria Miller knew their proposals would make single mothers and their children poorer.

For the extreme Religious Right led by CARE, material poverty is far less important than spiritual poverty. Fatherlessness, the overriding obsession of the Centre for Social Justice, is an affront to God. By making a generation of children poorer, they hope to set an example for future mothers - marry and stay married, or you and your children be damned. Frank Field, the Labour MP, ardent Christian, member of the Centre for Social Justice Advisory Council, and useful idiot for the British Religious Right, played a crucial role in the repeal of the Child Poverty Act 2010, with his “Independent Review on Poverty and Life Chances”, commissioned by Prime Minister, David Cameron.

On 2 December 2009 the Child Maintenance Commissioner, Stephen Geraghty, told the Work and Pensions Committee that:

“Of people in the statutory scheme, currently about 27% do not pay in a quarter, about 20% do not pay in a year and about 8% do not pay anything, but most of those, the ones who are in the statutory scheme, we do get money and that is within the period and, eventually, if people have got assets or income, we do get it. Clearly, it would be much better if we got it when it was actually due, but with the people we are talking about, that gets very difficult. In the market as a whole only about 47% of people are paying.”

It was simply a lie that most mothers used the Child Support Agency as the “default option” without trying to resolve matters amicably with fathers first.

Patrick Parkinson is a marriage-obsessed academic heavily involved with the Religious Right Australian Christian Lobby, close to Iain Duncan Smith and Samantha Callan, who was a consultant for the 2009 Centre for Social Justice family law report, “Every Family Matters”. In January 2008 The Times reported that:

“The architect of Australia’s acclaimed child maintenance system is so alarmed at Britain’s plans to overhaul the Child Support Agency that he has flown to London to voice his concern. The new system, which encourages separating couples to reach their own arrangements voluntarily, leaving a pared-down agency to deal with “hard cases”, means that many children will get far less than they deserve from their absent father, he has said. Patrick Parkinson, who designed the Australian model, said that the decision to scrap the CSA and replace it with a much smaller operation was the result of a “nervous breakdown” among senior politicians after years of technological and administrative disasters, but it was highly flawed. “There is a great dangers that child maintenance in Britain will now be seen as voluntary, that nonresident parents can decide whether or not they want to support their children,” he told The Times. “The second danger is that the resident parent, usually the mother, ends up acquiescing to the first offer made [by the father] on the grounds that at least they will get it.”

So even that arch-conservative Christian, Patrick Parkinson, was warning the Labour Government back in 2008 that encouraging separated parents to make private arrangements would lead to less financial support going to children. And even that arch-conservative Christian, Lord Mackay, a former Chancellor under Margaret Thatcher and John Major, led a revolt in the House of Lords in 2012 over the proposal to charge mothers to deter them from using the statutory system. Iain Duncan Smith, Samantha Callan and Maria Miller knew their proposals would make single mothers and their children poorer.

For the extreme Religious Right led by CARE, material poverty is far less important than spiritual poverty. Fatherlessness, the overriding obsession of the Centre for Social Justice, is an affront to God. By making a generation of children poorer, they hope to set an example for future mothers - marry and stay married, or you and your children be damned. Frank Field, the Labour MP, ardent Christian, member of the Centre for Social Justice Advisory Council, and useful idiot for the British Religious Right, played a crucial role in the repeal of the Child Poverty Act 2010, with his “Independent Review on Poverty and Life Chances”, commissioned by Prime Minister, David Cameron.

An insidious slur, rather than an empirically provable lie, the Government insists that “family based arrangements” are better for children and that mothers who “choose” to “depend on the state” or use the statutory system as “the default option” or as “a weapon” against fathers are failing to “take responsibility” and put their children’s emotional needs above their own petty vindictiveness and refusal to engage with fathers.

The claim originated with Karen and Nick Woodall, and arose from their bitterness over his obligation to pay child maintenance to his ex-wife in the 1990s, even though he looked after the children for half the week.

In fact, it was Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative Government that introduced the CSA in 1993 and forced mothers in receipt of welfare benefits to apply to it.

Even if separated parents had made amicable private child maintenance arrangements, whenever mothers found themselves having to claim Income Support - usually because they had small children and couldn’t afford childcare - they would be obliged to apply to the CSA or face a steep cut in their Income Support.

In 2008 the Labour Government removed this compulsion and switched tack, deciding to encourage separated parents to make voluntary child support agreements wherever possible.

Professor Patrick Parkinson, a British academic in Sydney, who designed the acclaimed Australian child support system, flew to Britain to warn the Government that this could lead to many more children receiving little or no maintenance as mothers would drop out of the system in order to placate fathers.

Patrick Parkinson is a member of the Australian Christian right, who was close to Iain Duncan Smith and Samantha Callan, He was a consultant to the Centre for Social Justice’s 2009 report, “Every Family Matters”, and Samantha Callan proof read his 2011 report, ““For Kids’ Sake: Repairing the Social Environment for Australian Children and Young People”. Iain Duncan Smith was even due to speak alongside him at the anti-LGBT World Congress of Families 2013 in Sydney, until the organisers withdrew his invitation after he voted in favour of same sex marriage, reneging on his earlier support for the notorious Section 28, which banned the “promotion” of homosexuality.

So it is bizarre that Iain Duncan Smith and Samantha Callan should choose to do precisely the opposite of what their friend advised the Labour Government to do. They knew - from another conservative and friend - that their reforms would lead to children receiving less child support. And yet they defiantly went ahead. Why? Because making children poorer was the point of the reforms.

In 2009 the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission, under the Labour Government, commissioned a report, Promotion of Child Maintenance: Research on Instigating Behaviour Change, to examine how to encourage separated parents to make child maintenance arrangements, whether privately or through the CSA. Of major concern was the failure, by a significant cohort of mothers, to approach the CSA if they were unable to make a private arrangement, or a tendency to accept inadequate, irregular payments in order to appease fathers and avoid jeopardising the father-child relationship. The report was published in March 2011, in the middle of the consultation period for the green paper on the proposed child maintenance reforms. Again, it is bizarre that a behaviour which the DWP wished to discourage in 2009 should have become a desirable behaviour to be promoted by 2011.

In a dramatic revolt in the House of Lords on 25 January 2012 against charging single mothers for using the statutory system, the aristocrat, Lord De Mauley, found only one ally among the phalanx of Peers, from all sides of the political spectrum, who were appalled and mystified by the proposal to charge mothers to use the “Collect and Pay” service and thus penalise them for fathers’ refusal to pay voluntarily.

Baroness Berridge, a fundamentalist evangelical Christian installed in the House of Lords by David Cameron six months after becoming Prime Minister (presumably at the request of multi millionaire Christian, Conservative Party Treasurer and major Tory Party donor, Michael (now Lord) Farmer), insisted that many mothers are themselves to blame for not receiving child maintenance. Channelling Karen Woodall’s parental alienation obsession, she gave a curiously petulant speech to Peers:

“I did briefly practise as a family barrister…

Although much has been said on behalf of mothers, who are in the majority in this situation, of course it is not as simple to say that just because the mother has the care of the children she is not sometimes at fault for the fact that maintenance is not paid. I would like to put on record before your Lordships the perspective of fathers, which I think is best described in the lyrics of Professor Green's "Read All About It", one of the most popular downloads last year. He was referring to his mother when he said:

"After all, you were never kin to me. Family is something you have never been to me. In fact making it harder for me to see my father was the only thing you ever did for me".

It is a heart-rending rap about a child caught in the animosity of a break-up. As I am sure your Lordships will agree, avoiding conflict in the courts or in any other forum helps to limit such animosity, greatly to the benefit of the children.

Will there be rare cases where the lack of payment is entirely the mother's fault? Yes. Will there be cases where the lack of payment is entirely the father's fault? Yes. However, in the majority of cases it will be to some extent both people's fault.”

To watch the full debate, which lasted almost an hour and a half, click here.

In March 2012 Iain Duncan Smith presented to Parliament his paper “Social Justice: transforming lives”:

“Where parents are unable to resolve issues arising from conflict post-separation, we are making changes to the family justice and child maintenance systems to limit the damage and disruption which can prevent parents from putting the needs of their child first.”

On 4 February 2014 Lord Kirkwood reminded the House of Lords that:

“When it comes to the obligation to maintain a child, the parents’ obligation is absolute. It does not matter what sort of dispute they have had with the other party to the arrangements in the past. I accept immediately that there are many different types of squabble that can emerge, and it is by no means clear that the non-resident parent is always fully responsible. I entirely understand that for the question of the break-up of the arrangements, both parties usually have some degree of responsibility. When it comes to the payment of maintenance, though, that obligation is absolute and is not qualified by the fact that the other party to the arrangement has been terrible, difficult or whatever.”

On 9 July 2014 , Caroline Davey of Gingerbread, giving evidence to the Public Accounts Committee Child Maintenance Scheme inquiry, highlighted the absurdity of asking mothers to make “family based arrangements” even when they had already tried and failed or when it was plain as day that fathers would refuse:

“It is instinctively logical, people who know full well that they cannot have that conversation with their child’s other parent or they have had a private arrangement and it has broken down, which is why they are applying to the statutory service in the first place, would have gone straight to the CSA. They would not have had to go through options. They would not have had to have the gateway conversation. Because those people are all now going through the gateway, there are an awful lot of people who may well be calling options and saying, “I’ve had a private arrangement for a few years.”—as James said, there is clear evidence that private arrangements break down over time—“It has now broken down. I now need some help.” Those people are being asked, “Would you consider a private, family-based arrangement?” That seems extraordinary. Similarly, those parents for whom a private arrangement was never likely, where there has been violence, hostility or unequal power arrangements, those people are saying, “We’ve split up. There is no way the ex will pay without support from the statutory service. I need to go through.” Again those people are being asked, “Have you considered a family-based arrangement?” That seems inappropriate, to be honest.”

On 7 December 2016 Caroline Nokes, Minister for child maintenance told the Work and Pensions Committee:

“What we have made the emphasis with Child Maintenance Service with some really important reforms is that we do not want to be dragging everybody into the statutory service.

We want them to think about what is best for their children. We want them to be able to co-operate and collaborate.”

Nokes, clearly winging it, was oblivious to the truth that nobody had been “dragged” into the statutory service since 2008, when the compulsion for single mothers on benefit was lifted. On the other hand, if she was referring to unwilling fathers being “dragged” into the Child Maintenance Service, she unwittingly revealed the whole point of the child maintenance reforms: to allow fathers not to pay child maintenance if they don’t want to.