[Solved] One rule for one

The CSA does allow a reduction in maintenance if you have a regular 2 nights per week, and the CMS also does this (and goes further and says no maintenance paid if it's genuine 50/50 shared care).

The problem with any system is that every case is different and that a one-rule-fits-all system is never going to be perfect, but the alternative is that every single case is assessed individually, and reviewed every time something changes, and that just isn't feasible at the moment (though I could see that it's something in the future that a decent computer algorithm could do based on records from inland revenue and the conditions of a contact order) so we're stuck with the best of a bad job.

Hello LiamH28

As you have a case with the Child Support Agency (CSA), any concerns or queries you have regarding your case you would need to contact them directly to discuss this. You will find their details on any letters they have sent you or on Gov.uk at https://www.gov.uk/child-maintenance.

I have included two links for how the CSA and the Child Maintenance Service on how they calculate child maintenance that you may find useful.

CSA: https://www.gov.uk/how-child-maintenance-is-worked-out/how-the-child-support-agency-works-out-child-maintenance.

Child Maintenance Service: https://www.gov.uk/how-child-maintenance-is-worked-out/how-the-child-maintenance-service-works-out-child-maintenance.

For more information on the different ways to set up child maintenance, you can visit the Child Maintenance Options website at http://www.cmoptions.org.

The DWP have a sorting out separation web-app that you may find useful. It offers help and support to separating and separated families. The link is: www.dad.info/divorce-and-separation/sorting-out-separation.

Regards

William

Welcome to Child Benefit for Two (CB42)

Campaign to bring fairness and equity to both parents raising a child in Britain today

March 2011 - UPDATE

A father recently met with his MP and shared the following correspondence with the CB42 Campaign. As you can clearly see this new coalition Government has nothing to offer in resolving the issues created by an unfair, biased benefit allocation that seriously impacts on families affected by parental separation, trying to balance parental roles and responsibilities. Please share your experiences with us.

May 25th 2010 - A new Early Day Motion (EDM 34) has been chaired by Adrian Sander MP (Lib-Dem) as follows:

EDM 34 - BENEFITS SYSTEM AND SHARED PARENTING

Sanders, Adrian MP (Lib-Dem)

That this House notes that child benefit can only be paid to one parent; further notes that this unnecessarily discriminates against the other parent where parents are separated and maintain shared custody of children; further notes that this can further discriminate against one parent by preventing access to suitable housing and additional income to allow them to provide for children; further notes that this can lead to restricted access for one parent to see their children; and calls on the Government to take action to address these problems.

The next step is for MP's to place their signature against this EDM to show their support. Previous iterations of the EDM have managed to attract no more than 34 signatures.

We need your help to request that your own MP signs this EDM in support of a fair and equitable universal benefit for children. EDM 61 attracted 18 Labour MPs, 10 Liberal Democrats and only 1 Conservative MP. With the new Conservative/Lib-Dem coalition government pronouncing the tenants of their policy as Freedom Fairness and Responsibility we believe that supporting reform for this universal benefit for families aligns to these policies.

Please contact your MP and ask him/her to sign EDM 34. You can do this very easily online with the free MP search websites www.writetothem.com or www.theyworkforyou.com. Please politely ask your MP as follows:

Dear MP Name,

I am writing to you as a constituent and would kindly request that you sign your support for EDM 34 Benefits System and Shared Parenting http://tinyurl.com/EDM34

Universal Child Benefit should be able to be payable to both parents in the event of parental separation or divorce, where both parents continue to play an equal and substantive caring role in their children's upbringing. Today's system of only paying Child Benefit to one parent enacts discriminatory laws and policies that lead to imbalances in a parents ability to equally care for their children and to maintain an equal status with regards to access to State provisions and benefit entitlements.

Child Benefit is often a gateway to other benefits and also can act as a financial incentive by one parent to limit the other parents parenting time to trigger qualification for Child Support payments when no such payments are necessary if Shared Parenting time and equal split of Child Benefit had established equality of roles. Each case should then be measured on its own merits.

More information of Shared Parenting and how Child Benefits affects this can be found at www.cb42.org

Kind regards, YOUR NAME, YOUR ADDRESS & POSTCODE

General Child Benefit Campaign Background Information

Today Child Benefit is payable to all households with dependant children regardless of wealth or savings and is a universal non-means tested benefit aimed at reaching all dependent children. Child Benefit is only payable to one parent, and the previous Labour Government stance was that it can not be split between two parents in the event of parental separation. In an intact family this system works perfectly fine, however when parents do separate this policy has the potential to invoke discriminatory laws and a shift in social status between the two parents, leading to real imbalance and bias that is rarely ever in the best interest of the children involved.

The non-means tested universal Child Benefit value (~£20 per week) won't change many peoples lives, but it is the gateway to qualifying for many parenting related benefits, support and also social acceptance of a parents role as primary carer. Child Benefit allows a parent to claim Child Support (CSA) from the other parent who is classed as an Absent Parent or Non-Resident Parent (NRP), although that parent may be actively sharing the care of their child between both homes. If the parent receiving the Child Benefit relinquishes it to the other parent, they could pursue them through CSA/C-MEC for Child Support although their parenting time would not have changed.

There are increasing numbers of cases where both parents are legally the primary carer / Resident Parent, (e.g. Shared Residence Order made under the Children Act) but that still doesn't guarantee they would have the Child Benefit, the tiebreaker is who has the child the most overnights, leading to day counting between parents and protection of their status, rather than what's in the child's best interest. There are many more cases where there is no legal status defining the roles between separated parents (never been involved in Family Courts), and even those legally recognised as having Shared Residence (~ Joint Custody) one parent, the one without Child Benefit is classed as the absent or Non-Resident Parent in all cases.

This situation as wholly discriminatory, unfair and it leads to bias and inappropriate labelling of the parent not receiving the Child Benefit. This is especially so for all parents, who after separation, continue to love, care and support their children equally regardless of the circumstances of the parental split.

We are campaigning for the Government to make changes to the way Child Benefit is distributed and assigned. There have been test cases in the European Court of Human Rights, and this UK benefit has been found to discriminatory for one specific case and is currently being appealed by the Government.

The Government has focused all its efforts on chasing errant and absent parent through the costly and failing CSA, and now desperately (once again) trying to re-create this agency to the new CMEC by 2012. This will not stop those caring parents who morally and ethically oppose being legally bound to pay child support even though they continue to play an equally active, hands-on and supportive parenting role in their children's lives.

In essence parents without Child Benefit that share the ongoing care of their children after parental separation or divorce are not recognised and are treated exactly the same as a feckless, irresponsible parent who abandons their children. The Government is blind to the best interest of children who are benefiting form ongoing care and involvement of both parents in their lives, and just want to label and financially hound absent parents.

This just isn't right, and the starting point of this discrimination is with the Child Benefit, the gateway to being recognised as a parent who has the duty of care for their children.

As a society we should be promoting stable families and cooperative shared parenting. When parents regrettably separate, it does not need to be a family tragedy, yet today this is often the case. Parents fighting over their children to try and avoid being cast as the absent non-resident (2nd class) parent, vying for rights and power for financial security, and involvement in their children's upbringing, parents walking away because it's less painful that the mammoth task of a futile legal battle. This isn't promoting co-parenting; it is creating wars and lifetimes of resentment, pain and loss.

Children are needlessly being affected by the way this country labels and handles separated caring parents. There is no distinction between the loving caring separated parent who just happens not to hold the Child Benefit, and the errant feckless parent who selfishly abandons their responsibility and duty of care and support. A problem the CSA are well aware of, but do nothing to correct.

Even when a Family Court orders that both parents are equal and have Shared Residence, the Child Benefit holder then continues to hold the key to State provisions, CSA claims and social status as the primary carer, even though legally their status is equal.

It is time for a change, and we ask for your support in what we see as a worthwhile campaign to limit the effects the sole parent Child Benefit time bomb.

Thank you for reading this far down, please now consider getting your MP to sign the EDM above so that the Government can see there is a public interest in reforming this outdated legislation.

Thank you for your support to our Downing Street Petition:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/cb42org/ (now closed)

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to reform the way in which Child Benefit is paid between both parents, as opposed to just one.

Child Benefit should be able to be payable to both parents in the event of parental separation or divorce, where both parents continue to play an equal and substantive caring role in their children's upbringing. Today's system of only paying Child Benefit to one parent enacts discriminatory laws and policies that lead to imbalances in parents ability to equally care for their children and to maintain an equal status with regards to access to State provisions and benefit entitlements. Child Benefit is often a gateway to other benefits and also can act as a financial incentive by one parent to limit the other parents parenting time to trigger qualification for Child Support payments when no such payments are necessary if shared parenting time and equal split of Child Benefit had established equality of roles. Each case should then be measured on its own merits.

Footnote: Her Majesties Revenue and Customs (HMRC) department ignores a parents equal status, even if they hold a Children Act Court Order for Shared Residence. The Parent With Care (PWC) is the parent in receipt of the Child Benefit payments, and this can only be one parent. This promotes single parent control with superior access to additional services and support and exclusion of the other active parent labelled as Non-Resident or Parent Without Care merely because HMRC do not recognise a Shared Parenting status. http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/childbenefit/

Labour Government Response 15th July 2008 : http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page16328

The Government is committed to the principle of universal Child Benefit, paid to the main carer, as the foundation of its support for children. The child should be the ultimate beneficiary of Child Benefit, and the Government’s view is that payment of support to the household with the main responsibility for the child is the most appropriate way to deal with the vast majority of families with children. Where parents have more than one child, it is possible for each of them to claim for a different child, therefore effectively splitting the support received via Child Benefit.

In cases where a voluntary agreement cannot be reached, HM Revenue and Customs Commissioners will make the decision, based on their judgement of which parent is mainly responsible for the child’s day-to-day care. Each case is decided solely on its own merits, based on the relevant facts of the case drawn from information provided by each of the claimants. The factors considered include: what any court orders say about where the child lives and who cares for them; how much time the child spends living with each parent; who pays for the child’s food and clothes; who arranges and pays for any childcare; and who looks after the child when they are ill and takes them to the doctor.

Contact us: enquiry@cb42.org

Child Benefit For Two (CB42.org) will lobby the Government on the current legislation which only supports the issuing of Child Benefit to one parent regardless of both parents active involvement in the child's upbringing