Unusual family circumstances require flexible enforcement policies, says Danielle Messenger
On 25 June 2007 Michael Cox, father of five, was sentenced to 42 days’ imprisonment for non-payment of child maintenance through the Child Support Agency (CSA), with arrears of £43,000 (unreported). Earlier in the year he received a suspended sentence to be triggered if he failed to make maintenance payments.
INFLEXIBILITY
This case demonstrates the inflexibility of the regulations in the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000. There is no mechanism for the CSA to deal with shared care arrangements. In each case the CSA needs to label one parent as the “parent with care” and the other the “non-resident parent”. The CSA regulations state that “if care is shared equally, the non-resident parent is the one who is not getting child benefit”. This means that a non-resident parent sharing care of the children loses out repeatedly. They will have identical costs in providing a home for the children, but will not receive any financial assistance from the state and will also
-maryam-naaz-theo-corbett-and-rachel-carter-with-(front-from-left)-arya-vindlacheruvu-and-jessica-ashcroft.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=47f89300_1)
