Parents happier with family-based arrangements

We have received this press release from CMOptions


Parents happier with family-­base­d arrangements, says major survey.

New research shows separated parents who work out their own child maintenance arrangements are more satisfied with their set-up than those using the Child Support Agency (CSA).

Figures released today reveal more than two thirds of parents with a family-­base­d arrangement said they were happy with their situation. Only a third of CSA clients said they felt the same.

Almost 90% of non-resident parents complied with their own arrangements, compared with just under two thirds of those who had payments assessed and enforced by the CSA. Most parents (74%) considered family-­base­d arrangements to be fairer than those calculated and enforced by the state system (42%).

Work and Pensions Minister Maria Miller said: "Collaborative, family-­base­d arrangements would seem to work best for most separated families. That’s why we want every parent who lives apart from their children to have the chance to meet their responsibilities outside of the state service.”

Ken Sanderson, Chief Executive of Families Need Fathers, said: "We are not surprised that the research shows that the best possible outcomes for children are achieved when parents work together. That's why we think any encouragement by government for separated families to come to their own arrangements rather than use inflexible state-enforced calculations is a good idea. Too often, in the past, the CSA has been seen by some as a means of creating problems and hardship for ex partners and apportioning blame - we have to move away from this. "

The BMRB survey was ­base­d on telephone interviews with just over 2000 parents who had contact with the Child Maintenance Options information and support service between July 2008 and January 2010.

Respondent on benefits (88% of whom had no arrangement) and those on incomes of less than £9,000 per annum (37% with no arrangement) were much more likely than other groups to have no child maintenance arrangement at all. The most common reasons given were; not wanting any contact with the other parent, ignorance of their whereabouts or a history of domestic violence.

The Government wants to see all separated parents get help to sort out and maintain child maintenance arrangements themselves, instead of using the CSA as the default option. With CSA clients less likely to have regular contact with the other parent, the research suggests that many of these families would benefit from some support with their relationships.

Maria Miller said: "This research helps to explain why, even after 18 years of the Child Support Agency, so many children remain unsupported by both parents. The present system, which completely ignores family relationships, has channelled hundreds of thousands of unwilling parents into a costly bureaucracy. That’s why we plan a fresh start for child maintenance with all parents given much better support and a fair chance to make their own, family-­base­d, arrangements."


Editor's Notes

The survey is ­base­d on telephone interviews with 2,009 parents who used Child Maintenance Options between July 2008 and January 2010. Parents were interviewed a minimum of two months after contact with the service to ensure that those with the most recent contact had sufficient time to set up an arrangement. The survey had a response rate of 45%.
The majority of parents interviewed were parents-with-care (94%) and 6% were non-resident parents. The vast majority of parents-with-care were female (94%) and the majority of non-resident parents were male (72%)
Overall, 64 per cent of those questioned had a child maintenance arrangement of some sort in place. Of those, 48% had made their arrangement after contact with Child Maintenance Options.
Parents with arrangements worked out between themselves were also more likely to have frequent contact with their children. 50% of non- resident parents with family-­base­d arrangements see their children every day or two or three times a week, whilst only 13% of CSA clients did.
To see the full survey, go to http://www.childmaintenance.org/en/publications/research.html
· The Coalition Government’s proposal for the future of Child Maintenance, “Strengthening Families, Promoting Parental Responsibility: the

Future of Child Maintenance”, was published in January 2011. It can be viewed here: http://www.dwp.gov.uk/policy/child-maintenance/

HI HAd,

Thanks for putting that up.

The finding that people are more likely to stick to agreements made between themselves than to agreements impose upon them is not really a surprise, is it?

What is a surprise is that someone spent time and money to check.

YA

Everytime I phone the CSA to check on something, i.e. whether ex has paid and or whether he has paid the right amount and at the right time, the person who answers the phone always asks me whether i would be hapyy to make my own arrangement with my ex.

Ummm, no, that is why I am with you because my ex never pays CSA on time and usually the wrong amount and so they have to phone him, write warning letters etc in order to get the money from him.

Got rid of a narcisstic, abusing, serial cheater who quite frankly would rather our children were not around than help them in the slightest. So, I for one say Long Live the CSA!

Hi SW,

I think the CSA is a wonderful idea. My ex got them involved and they cut down the money I was paying which was good as it forced me to rethink my own role in life (this was before I joined Wiki and at my most vulnerable).

Since that time my ex applied to leave the CSA (as her temper cooled) and we have sorted out CM which is fair .

A good idea and like all good ideas it needs good implementation to work.

The survey on the other hand is silly.


YA

In our case it was the opposite of YA and for almost 6 years we had a voluntary agreement, although it has to be said with some reluctance on my ex's part. Then the CSA were involved because it was canceled after my ex didn't get his own way with contact (nothing to do with me, our son was just months away from his 18th birthday and made his own arrangements.)

I can understand the thinking behind the CSA but also am fully aware of how the CSA is far too often used to beat the NRP into becoming a cash cow and very often forced into hardship.

The number of suicides directly associated with CSA pressure is shocking but sadly when opportunists like David Cameron write Fathers Day articles these stats always seem to be conveniently forgotten.

Nobody can condone a feckless NRP whether they be a mother or a father. Equally, not enough is said about how malicious and greedy PsWC abuse and work the CSA.

The fact is the CSA is open to abuse from both PsWC and NRPs.

The bottom line, an involved NRP outside of the CSA pays on average more than those forced to go through the system.

The system encourages toxic dynamics.

The most common toxic scenario is a PWC, usually a mother, who uses the CSA and contact to punish the NRP; on the other hand, the most common NRP response to this to try and dodge the CSA.

What is done to break this cycle? Nothing.

Is the government responsible for this? No,it's the parties involved, the PWC and the NRP for allowing bitterness and anger to fester.

Perhaps not in all the cases, but no doubt there is a frequent link in most PWC-NRP-CSA triangles and that is perpetuation of conflict via tit-for-tat.

I have to agree, that this scenario would work fine if the relationship between the 2 parenst were amicable.

But where the NRP is using it as an excuse to pay little CM (­base­d on false accounting income) then it stinks. I know that many NRP's and Rp's unfortunataley would not be able to reach an agreement and ultimataley it is the children that suffer. How sad.

Survive
x