header-logo header-logo

30 October 2008
Issue: 7343 / Categories: Legal News , Child law , Family
printer mail-detail

New child maintenance rules may neglect single parents

Government seeking to reduce burden on statutory schemes

Rules aimed at eradicating child poverty and providing a cost effective service for the taxpayer may lead to single parent families missing out.

Rules regarding child maintenance, which encourage ex-couples to reach their own arrangements voluntarily, came into force this week. Those that fail to reach an agreement are to face action from the newly instigated Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission (CMEC).

Janet Paraskeva, chairman of the CMEC, says: “We need to put the interests of children first and disconnecting maintenance payments from the benefits system is an important step forward.”

However, Richard Bebb, a partner at Thring Townsend Lee & Pembertons, says there is concern that single parent families who are unable to make their own arrangements may miss out altogether. There will certainly be parents that would prefer to be treated responsibly, and not be forced to use a state scheme...for unlucky single parents who cannot reach agreement, and who might not claim benefits within a voluntary system, their children may be the biggest losers in the government’s new strategy to tackle child poverty,” he says.

Bebb says that despite assurances from the CMEC that nobody will be forced to opt out of the statutory service and that it will remain available for those unable to reach private arrangements, research conducted by family charities found that up to 24% of lone parents within a voluntary system may go without child maintenance. “It seems clear that the government is trying to reduce the burden on the statutory scheme and thereby render it more effective than the Child Support Agency has been. However, single parents in receipt of benefits could be seen as a soft target because any maintenance received is simply deducted from benefits,” he adds.
 

Issue: 7343 / Categories: Legal News , Child law , Family
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Boodle Hatfield—Clare Pooley & Michael Duffy

Boodle Hatfield—Clare Pooley & Michael Duffy

Private wealth and real estate firmpromotes two to partner and five to senior associate

Forbes Solicitors—Stephen Barnfield

Forbes Solicitors—Stephen Barnfield

Regulatory team boosted by partner hire amid rising health and safety demand

Arc Pensions Law—Kris Weber

Arc Pensions Law—Kris Weber

Legal director promoted to partner at specialist pensions firm

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll