Press Release

 

'Never re-enforce defeat'

 

This is one of the fundamental military maxims, and so it should be over the Child Support Agency, said John Baker, chair.

There is absolutely no reason why even more draconian sanctions granted to the CSA will work any better than the attempts so far. So far, attempts to recover money have cost more in administration than the amount of money they raised.

The best solution to any problem, as the Buddha said, is for it not to arise in the first place.

There is no solution to the problems of the CSA with the 'problem' framed solely as an issue of compliance from the excluded parent.

The 'problem' is currently framed on this premise. That one parent has the care and the cost of the children, and as a result is unable to work, or can only work in disadvantaged ways. The role of the other parent is to fund her and the children, while often being - wholly or mostly - excluded from  caring for them.

The way forward is gender equality.

Both parents should be able to earn, ideally equally.
Both parents should care for the children.

If there were equality in both, there would be no need for a CSA, exceptional situations apart.

This is, of course, a long term goal. Every move in this direction will ease the problems of the CSA in four ways
  1. the incomes of the parents will be more equal, and child poverty reduced
  2. the costs of the children will be more fairly shared
  3. the amounts needing transfer will be less
  4. There will be less resistance to paying.
The solution to the problems of the CSA, as well as a host of other problems, is shared parenting

On Point 4, the CSA is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of current attitudes to child support. It is based on the assumption that parents have a duty to maintain their biological children. Of course they should, but popular attitudes  are slightly, but importantly,  different.  People share their money with children, partners and even ex-partners with whom they share a life. They will resist paying for children living in another household  if they are excluded from their lives. End that exclusion, and the resistance to economic support will diminish. Parents cannot but finance children when they are in their care. They will also much more readily share their incomes with their children when they are not in their care if they are happy with the arrangements.

The experience of this charity is that protests from fathers about economic support often turn out to be protests about being excluded from the lives of their children.

Currently fathers provide one third of childcare in intact families. The rapid - and continuing -  increase in this has been a spontaneous social development that owes nothing to public policy. When a family divides, the amount of parenting time the child has with her or his 'other parent' may be cut by two thirds or more.

One cannot expect that parent - or the children - to be happy with that, or to be keen to finance those arrangements.

Coercion rarely works. This is especially the case if there are perceived double standards. The State expects shared economic support of children. It stands in the way of shared care. It enforces economic obligations, it does not tackle the need of children for the loving care of both parents. This is a recipe for resistance.

The current formula for the calculation of benefit is unacceptable. For example, where the care and costs of the children is equally shared, and where the income of the mother (or residential parent, or of the household of which s/he is part) is equal or higher than that of the residential parent, the father (or non-residential parent) still has to pay. This is double payment. In addition she (or the residential parent) gets all the child benefit and tax credits due, with no provision for sharing that either. This is double standards and it is hard to expect support for it. 

The 'rule of law' imposes on citizens the duty to obey the law. 'Government by consent' imposes on politicians the duty not to impose laws that do not rest on consent. The story of the CSA has been one of the refusal of a section of the population to respect a law to which they did not consent. FNF as a respectable charity calls on all its members and those it represents to obey the law. It also calls for an biased law to be repealed and for government by consent to be restored.

The way forward for the CSA is three-pronged

  1. to reduce the need;
  2. to have a fair calculation for shared care and costs;
  3. to win consent for the arrangements , and that means a fair and balanced policy for children in divided families that respects their need for care and financial support from both parents.
If this policy was implemented Families Need Fathers would be delighted to support it.

Ends.

Please see Families Need Fathers ‘programme for change’ Father’s Day Manifesto

 
Join Now

Search Site