Child Support Review

In the UK, the Child Maintenance Service (CMS) operates on an income-based system whereby a portion of the parent who does not have primary custody of the children or the child contributes to the costs of raising them through their income. While an effective system to fairly distribute financial responsibility of both parents on paper, in reality, this system can be easily perverted and even manipulated into a weapon to maintain abusive relationships. This essay will discuss the flaws of this system and propose a new one which could potentially mitigate damage to the children in divorces.

Because the system operates on the weekly income of the paying parent, this is an unstable foundation for child support to be on. For example, commonly in divorces, there is a high amount of resentment from both parties towards each other, which could lead to one party attempting to reduce their child support payments. This could either be through legal loopholes allowing for hidden income or quitting their job, which was their main source of income. Even if not attempting to undermine CMS, paying parents may operate in a gig economy, which is highly unstable, meaning payments could drastically change monthly, which is extremely inconvenient if the child has fixed monthly costs, such as a club or extracurricular lessons. The darker side of this system, which I myself have been exposed to by my own father, is the idea that an abusive parent could threaten to quit their job meaning the parent with primary custody could not afford to provide them a standard of living equivalent to what they had while both parents were still together this is often a leading cause in why domestic violence victims remain with their abusive partners.

Instead of this flawed system, the UK should adopt a CMS which audits wealth, not income. This would immediately tackle the problems discussed in the first paragraph, as all wealth would be classified as the same. Even if someone were to quit their job if their wealth reports were to come back that they are stable enough to be able to afford to provide the payment, then they should still be able to pay the maintenance cost of their child. Furthermore, while there are ways that wealth could be hidden, many would fall under tax evasion, which is a more serious crime. This reformed system makes sure that parents are still accountable for their child’s welfare and do not think that their responsibility to their own child ended when they lost custody. Even more importantly than that point is that the child or children must have stability post-divorce; instability in the home has been seen to cause many mental health problems in the children. Financial instability is a factor in all this, so tackling this problem safeguards the physical and mental welfare of the children.

Some could argue that this new system is more complex than the previous system. It is more difficult to audit a person's wealth than their income. Reforming the system would expand bureaucracy in the CMS, potentially causing audits and desperately needed child maintenance payments to be delayed as it makes its way through the system. In addition to these advances in modern financial tracking technology allows income audits to be more accurate, making sure the child gets the correct amount from their parents. Adding extra complexity would just increase the backlog of magistrate courts, which is already in a dire state. Despite this, I would still argue the child's welfare should be prioritised over additional administrative burdens; along with this, the same technological advancements can be seen with technology designed to audit a person's wealth.

In conclusion, the problems with the current CMS display the desperate need for reform in this area. Not only would reform reduce the number of parents attempting to cheat the system, but also provide stability to the child’s life, which has already been undermined by their parents' separation.