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

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll