Written evidence from Need fathers (CHM0084)

FNF is a registered charity set up in 1973 to promote shared after separation and . This submission is on our behalf and of our ‘sister’ charity FNF Scotland. .

FNF receive approximately 25,000 service calls per year through the national FNF Helpline, 50+ regional branches in the UK, online support and courses.

To assist with this response we carried out online public surveys in 09/2016. The 810 responses received are partly a basis for our submission.

Being a charity that primarily supports non-resident (NRPs), our responses tend to focus on these. We empathise too with the struggles of parents with care, and other organisations support them powerfully already.

Please address any queries/requests for data Michael Lewkowicz at FNF.

Executive Summary

 CMS service facilitates the calculation and collection of CM for many children, but, is simply too blunt an instrument for ensuring that all children are well supported often resulting in unintended negative consequences for children and parents alike.

 Current CMS procedures/calculations tend to increase rather than reduce conflict.

 Issues of affordability are not addressed driving a c.15% of parents to poverty, debt, ill health, reduced earning capacity, opting out of work completely and even suicide. Adding 20% collection charges may push parents overboard into debt and despair.

 Many with financial difficulties have spent huge sums (average £23,000) on legal fees relating to Children Act proceedings and additional costs e.g. to travel to see children who have been moved away. 23% are also taking care of families from subsequent relationships.

 Current formula works against principles eg by inadequately incentivising shared care. Other child benefits further exacerbate this presenting as effective gender bias.

 Current arrangements contribute to tens of thousands of children being gratuitously orphaned from one , resulting in short and long-term psychological harm.

 Current arrangements are a disincentive to both parents working.

 The lack of a holistic approach between government departments further compounds the issues.  The effect of these difficulties on tens of thousands of non-resident parents is to leave them feeling disenfranchised, hurt and undervalued as parents.

 We estimate that as a result of these shortcomings, families are deprived of over £200m a year and huge amounts of and parenting.

 The image of the ‘deadbeat’ dad is simply not a reality. It’s demeaning to thousands of non-resident fathers FNF deal with. They love their children and most NRPs greatly invest themselves, their careers and money in order to be good dads.

 CMS and related services should be reviewed to ensure that they are ‘tested’ against key criteria to avoid the serious negative impacts on many families and children eg encouraging shared parenting, responsibility and conflict reduction.

In summary, with a more holistic approach valuing both parents, there would be more shared parenting, improved support by NRPs and better outcomes for children.

1. How well is the CMS performing for children and parents? How can it be improved?

1.1. Overview 1. FNF acknowledge a proportion of NRPs do not seek to be involved with their children where CSA/CMEC provide a mechanism, including enforcement, to ensure that CM is forthcoming.

2. There are also many families where shared parenting, financial contributions and contact arrangements are working well. Many positive comments were received, particularly relating to improvements in communication by CMS versus CSA.

3. The overwhelming message was that CSA/CMEC and CMS are not performing well.

46% of respondents disagreed strongly (1/10 scores) with the statement: “The CMS service is much better than the CSA was”.

1.2. Affordability 1. Respondents are not ‘deadbeat dads’ - most would pay more towards their children if they could afford it.

 50% of respondents agreed  65% of these completely agreed (scoring 10/10)

2. 15% struggle with affordability and are pushed into poverty, many severely with several reporting suicide attempts and thoughts.

3. Many NRPs become heavily indebted due to the cost of court proceedings.  Parents funding their cases on average spent £23k each on legal/court costs

 235 had spent over £10k, many considerably more

“I have a lot of debt through loans and credit cards to pay for court so I could see my son. I struggle each month after I pay my ex maintenance. The CSA/CMS do not look at what your outgoings are ie bills debt mortgage etc and force you to pay an amount they come up with”.

“I have lost my entire life savings of £400,000”

4. Given these ‘investments’ in their children, many NRPs, feel ‘between a rock and a hard place’, unable to support their children or pay off legal debts incurred in pursuit of involvement with their children.

5. 19% of respondents reported having difficulties affording maintenance payments. For 15% this was very serious (10/10 score to statement ‘I cannot afford to pay’.

“cannot afford this due to rent, legal costs and costs of travel to see my children” (dozens)

“the lack of means testing or consideration of circumstances results in callous extraction of finances” (many similar)

“Caused clinical depression (many) and suicide attempts” (several)

“I've lost my house”

“If not for my family the CMS would have made me homeless!”

“I have to now work 7 days a week just to keep a roof over my head and pay my CMS”

“I have less than £100 a month for food, petrol etc.”

“They don't consider my outgoings” (many)

“As a result, the children consider me to be stingy”

6. For shared parenting arrangements, the formula does not reflect the share of parenting time and leads to additional conflict. Not only is this unfair, but undermines affordability of shared parenting. This must be reviewed.

“My children stay with me approx 40 per cent of the year yet I’m still classed as the non-resident parent. I’m entitled to no financial support which has an impact on how I’m able to provide for my children. The current system is not in their .” 1.3. CMS Charges

1. 88% of respondents consider the breakdown of CMS charges between the paying and receiving parent as unfair (72% with10/10 scores). Symbolically, it sends the wrong message and plays to a false stereotype: fathers need sanctions to make them responsible; mothers don’t.

“Gender equality (4% v's 20%)” / “should be 10% each”

“50/50 collection charges (unless the paying partner refused payment /missed payments regularly)” (many)

2. 64% believe that the way child maintenance works increases conflict. 48% agree very strongly scoring 10/10.

“has a perverse incentive to for the resident parent to keep contact as low as possible”

“CSA/CMS encourage denial of contact”

“I am now having to rent out his bedroom and he stays in my bedroom with me” father with shared residency, but not shared support

“I earn £20,000 a year my ex earns approx £60,000 I struggle to pay my bills and am denied access [by my ex] to my children. This should be taken into account”

3. When asked to compare CMS to CSA, most, though not all, considered the change to be negative.

“collection fees are ridiculously high”

“My new payments are too high and unaffordable. I don't know how I can afford to continue with them”

1.4. Obstacles to Private Agreement Yet 53% of respondents had tried to persuade their ex-partners to agree to an arrangement without the use of the CSA or CMS, but it was refused. In effect they are being punished for irresponsible actions by their ex-partners.

1.5. Responsiveness to Changes in Circumstances Delays in reassessment of payments when pay decreases by less than 25% may be manageable by some, but especially for those with low incomes/large debts, this unacceptable threshold pushes NRPs into poverty. >50% of respondents experienced hardship.

Threshold should be no more than 10%.

“Took far too long” (many) “In the real world if your wages vary by 20% it happens instantly”

“I could not afford to live! I now have huge credit card debts” (many)

“It almost destroyed me” (many) “she enjoyed an easy life”

“With the CMS, the resident parent is able to put a malicious complaint in regarding any dishonesty around the level of my wage despite the courts already having looked at the matter during the divorce”

“degrading” “It left me living on handouts and packets of 50p biscuits”

“I have been wrongly tarnished as a non payer”

“Due to my being self employed recently I cannot give an accurate annual income so was told I will have to pay from a calculation from my previous job where I earned £15,000 more per annum”

1.6. Children From Other Relationships 23% reported supporting children from other relationships. These must be taken into account in assessments – helping one family at the expense of another does not make sense and can result in the break-up of that family too.

“ has [been] at the expense of the 2 children with my wife that are with me” (several)

1.7. Impact on Earning Potential

4. 35% of NRPs reported they do not have any direct contact with their children.

5. This has a major impact on parents’ earnings potential, reducing available CM.

62% agreed that their “earning potential has suffered significantly due to the impact on my wellbeing as a result of denial of a relationship with my children”. 38% agreed completely (scoring 10/10)

“constant stress involved in not seeing my child has had a negative impact on my career”

6. 17% said that they had opted out of work as they could not afford to live whilst making CM payments. Consequently children, parents and tax payers lose out. It is likely these form a significant rump of cases that CSA/CMS find themselves unable to collect CM and where arrears remain.

“Total mental breakdown. I will never work again”

“I left mainstream employment to take back control!” “I feel so bullied by it I want to go abroad”

“[they] took more than I could afford to pay and forced me to stop working” (several)

“my new husband is paying so much money out to an ex for one child that we can't afford to live anymore and he is having to pack his job in”

7. The imposition of an additional 20% charge to the NRPs widens the barrier to returning to work. It reinforces their perception that ‘the authorities’ are only interested in them as a source of cash and not their well-being.

8. Some took steps to minimise their obligations, largely due to their inability to afford them. Others became unwell from acute anxieties surrounding their children/finances.

9. Many PWCs do not work, even when their youngest child attends school. Two thirds of respondents believe their ex should be working more – 52% scored this 10/10.

32% suggested that their ex was making an irresponsible lifestyle choice scoring 10/10 to the statement “My ex-partner does not work because she/he does not have to”.

Responses were polarised, acknowledging that there are many PWCs who also work hard.

10.Where this occurs children lack a responsible working . The economy also loses able workers. Children lose out from not having two earning parents.

11.DWP needs to create a framework that encourages both parents to work.

“I've made huge personal sacrifices to my quality of life whilst mum is enjoying being a stay-at home mum with ample resources.”

1.8. Disenfranchisement and Avoidance of Child Maintenance 1. 75% of NRPs report that they would be happier to contribute financially if they were more involved with their children after separation. 57% completely agreed (scoring 10/10)

2. 16% conceded that they became self-employed at least partly to increase control over their payments and affordability. 9% completely agreed (10/10)

3. 62% felt resentful and hurt by making payments whilst deliberately denied contact. 45% completely agreed (10/10)

25% strongly disagreed with this, however, it seems likely that those respondents had better incomes and were enjoying contact. “Ex wants more [money] and reduces access and contact to my son, including limiting phone contact to 3 minutes per fortnight and refusing Skype”

“[I had] less pay and my ex threatened me with not being allowed to see my son” (many)

4. Many respondents feel completely disenfranchised and, deprived of their very identity as parents, with no influence on their children’s lives other than through their wallets. They feel unsupported by ‘the authorities’ in enforcing Child Arrangement Orders, being more likely to resent paying towards their estranged children and hence to take steps to reduce such payments.

“Severe financial hardship whilst my ex enjoyed expensive holidays abroad” (a few)

“the injustice of having to pay for another person to parent my child when I would like to do it myself”

5. Asked whether they agree with the statement:

‘I feel that I can fulfil my role as a parent in every sense of the word’

58% agree (40% completely). However, 42% disagree; 23% completely disagree – reflecting the position of NRPs without contact.

“I feel worthless as a parent, The only interest in me is that I pay!”

“Loss of self esteem”

6. The lack of sanctions against non-compliant parents’ court orders for contact is a bitter pill that too many parents are asked to swallow. Whilst these issues are separate from a child’s need to eat, they are a powerful factor in discouraging responsibility. DWP and MoJ should take a holistic approach to these issues as they are unmistakably intertwined. With this there would be a quadruple ‘win-win’:

 fewer children gratuitously orphaned from one parent  more generous financial contributions  both parents will find life easier and less stressful  reduced pressures on CMS, courts, etc.

7. PWCs have a wealth of tools to invoke against non-payment. NRPs’ driving licences and passports can be suspended, deductions can be made by their employer and they are made to pay extra.

8. Without such enforcement tools for child arrangement orders, contact deniers face no such consequences. NRPs come to believe that the government does not value them as parents with money more important than welfare.

9. It’s an unsustainable position because it is unjust, eroding NRPs’ sense of identity as parents and disempowering them. It makes the parent with care very powerful with no counter-balance to deal with those who abuse that power to the detriment of their own children.

10.Often they feel that ‘the State’ has it stacked against them – providing sticks for their ex-partners to beat them with.

11.The current system for evaluating and charging for collection of child maintenance payments is too blunt and causes too much hardship for both parents. The vast majority love their children, but in many cases are denied the opportunity to demonstrate this and exercise responsibility.

12.Additional difficulties, even in getting educational information from schools lead to a loss of self esteem, a feeling of being neutered as parents. Unless these issues are addressed, draconian measures in CM collection cannot produce significant improvements in outcomes.

13.Thousands of parents each year come to FNF for support in meeting their most basic, natural instincts – to be loving dads. Yet they find themselves in a Kafkaesque system that undermines them.

2. What problems do the parents face? 1. Too many NRPs faces a poverty trap and a virtually insurmountable set of obstacles e.g. affordable adequate accommodation to have their child stay or, costs of mediation which they must attempt before turning to the courts. Mediation usually fails to persuade a recalcitrant parent who is faced with a reduction in income if they agree. So they then need to fund the £215 court application fee and several thousand pounds if they wish to be represented.

2. Proceedings may last 6 months or even years, often at no cost to the PWC. Increasingly PWCs claim to be victims of domestic violence and apply for a Non- Molestation Orders as a passport to legal aid, with no adverse consequences if the court subsequently finds such allegations to have been malicious or unfounded.

3. 57% (341) respondents indicated that their ex-partners received legal aid through false/unfounded allegations of domestic abuse. This has become a very big issue.

“False allegations and contact denial should be penalised financially with lower payments to the ex”

4. There is no availability of council housing for NRPs wishing to have their children stay overnight. Only the parent with care qualifies.

19% of parents could not afford suitable accommodation, reducing their children’s ability to participate in home life with them.

5. Lack of empathy and impartiality by CMS are also frequently reported. A caller to our Helpline whose son was mostly staying with him was told that because the mother received child benefit she was the primary carer and he still had to pay child support. 6. There has to be some equality of arms and a reduction of unnecessary obstacles that discriminate on a gender basis.

3. Are levels of child maintenance set correctly? 1. No. If the child spends 180 nights each year with one parent (the paying parent) and 185 nights a year with the receiving parent, the paying parent will still have to pay 50% of the amount they would have to pay if the did not have the child overnight at all. And if the child stayed just an extra 3 nights, the OTHER parent would be paying instead and would lose all their benefits! Patently absurd and discourages 50% shared parenting.

2. Most benefits are only paid to the PWC. Appendix shows how an NRP whose child stays with them for 180 days a year receives no benefits whereas the ‘parent with (51%) care’ receives £14k in benefits.

“Benefits should be shared”

3. CMS calculations discourage shared parenting; financially encouraging the receiving parent to reduce children’s relationship with the NRP and rewards dishonesty about NRP’s parenting time and disregard of contact orders.

4. What powers does the CMS have and how effectively are they used? How effective is enforcement action? 1. FNF does not have an issue with the powers which are available to the CMS, only their indiscriminate application and lack of similar powers to enforce contact between children and their NRPs. Powers could be used to promote shared parenting and a reduction in conflict, but are not. Changing the way incentives are used can turn resentment and avoidance into willing participation in more difficult cases.

“Making it means tested and encouraging and supporting shared parenting.”

“Payment should equal contact where there is no risk to the child.”

2. Many NRPs feel beaten up already. CMS should be seen as an agency that understands and responds to NRP’s issues. It needs to evolve to be seen to support all aspects of a child’s wellbeing, including emotional and psychological.

3. CMS must develop simple robust systems that take into account:  Both parents’ income/wealth  Housing arrangements that support shared parenting  Geography – too many children are relocated simply to make it too expensive and impractical for NRPs to remain in their lives.

4. Powers that are seen to be fair to both parents will result in more resources for children and improved outcomes for children. 5. What will happen to CSA arrears or unresolved cases when parents move to the new CMS?

We don’t have an understanding of the make-up of such arrears. Plans need to be pragmatic and affordable. Perhaps a student loan type of system that only applies above a certain income level. Pursuing NRPs who don’t have money will achieve little and will cost the taxpayer.

6. How might the CMS deal with any weaknesses or loopholes in the old CSA system? See answer to (5) above.

7. Are there any opportunities for Government departments to work together to ensure regular payment?

Definitely – see comments made earlier.

1. Evidence from our thousands of service users suggests that the key to unlocking regular payments is through working with other government agencies to reduce conflict and meet the needs of separated families and their children.

2. Child specialists such as Consultant Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist, Dr Hamish Cameron have identified that the UK is 25+ years behind leading countries in dealing with issues of family separation. Despite research consistently showing that shared parenting arrangements are in the best interest of children, large scale failures by courts, CAFCASS, CSA/CMS, social services and the fiscal framework to take a holistic approach continue to result in poor outcomes for tens of thousands of children. This is an inter-generational time- bomb.

3. Evidence from our service users suggests that in focusing solely on the narrow objective of ensuring that children are financially supported, CSA/CMEC fail to achieve the best overall outcomes for children. Perhaps more pertinent to this consultation, there is evidence that such a narrow focus also results in poorer child support arrangements.

4. If courts order the child should stay with the NRP every other weekend from Friday to Sunday, that constitutes 52 nights a year and reduces child support for the paying parent by 1/7th. If the parent with care refuses to comply with the court order for a single night in that year, the CMS will remove the reduction for overnights yet the paying parent has to maintain a bedroom for the child to stay.

5. CM and contact decisions are intended to support a child’s best interests. However, whereas there is effective enforcement in relation to CM, only 2% of contact orders are enforced with the burden of cost falling mostly on NRPs (£215 application costs and for most, £thousands in legal fees.

6. What children need more than anything is both parents and their love in their lives. This outweighs money alone. It improves academic attainment, keeps them out of crime and helps them form healthy relationships when older. 7. The evidence of embattled and diminishment of NRPs is clear in many areas. Many even report obstacles put in the way of even getting a school report, meeting a teacher or receiving medical information. For many it amounts to horrifying exclusion.

8. DWP, MoJ, DfE and the Department of Health need to work much more closely together on resolving these issues holistically. This must be from the perspective of both parents so that the unevenness of approach by the ‘authorities’ does not continue to lead to a sense of profound unfairness and injustice. All policies must promote shared parenting as part of an overarching strategy of conflict reduction, parental involvement and responsibility.

9. The UK ranks poorly against other OECD nations in a wide range of children related measures. A wide ranging review can begin to address these. A failure to do this will lead to the UK continuing to perform badly on these measures and, vitally, children continuing to be failed.

10.This review should be a catalyst for change. It should move quickly on ‘quick win’ gains whilst also addressing the need to have a gender neutral approach to parents in terms of benefits, provision of statutory parental leave, encouragement to support children in every way, including financially, etc. It should begin to address the need for all children to have good, responsible maternal and paternal role models. It should start to take away the roadblocks to this that are experienced by tens of thousands of parents each year.

11.All policies affecting separated families should be tested – see section 9 below.

8. Is there any international evidence on ways of ensuring parents regularly contribute to their children’s maintenance payments?

8.1. Yes there are studies from the US and elsewhere which show a link between parenting time and child support payments. Research consistently shown a positive link between the child seeing the parent who pays child support and both the amount of child support paid and the willingness of that parent to pay child support. NRPs want to see their children. More time for the child with the NRPs makes that parent feel more involved, more engaged and more interested

8.2. Sweden is an excellent example of a country where the fiscal and family support systems are aligned to achieve best outcomes for children. As a result the level of shared parenting arrangements is at least four times as high as in England and Wales.

9. Concluding Comments

9.1. Key tests for all government agency proposals and policies

 Is proposal affordable to both parents?  Does it add or reduce conflict between separated parents?  Does it discourage or encourage shared parenting?  Does it support or detract from a child maintaining a relationship with both parents (shown consistently to be highly beneficial to them).  Does it promote involvement of both parents in the lives of their children?  Does it make work more not less attractive to both parents (where children are at school)?  Does it treat parents with equality and respect e.g. by charging each the same for CMS services?  Does it result in both parents feeling valued and empowered as parents?  Does it contribute or detract from children having positive paternal as well a maternal roll models?  Does it take into account incomes of both parents or does one parent live in poverty whilst the other in relative luxury

9.2. Final Comments

The need for change is urgent.

No parent or child should suffer as so many do now.

The evidence of both parents’ importance in a child’s life is powerful and compelling.

Current mechanisms for support, including CMS/CSA do not promote this.

Nor do they promote a reduction in family conflict, at a time when that is what is most needed.

Too often they provide a stick that can be used by parents to beat each other up with.

Too often they discourage the taking of personal responsibility.

Too often they punish the parent who simply wants to love and support their child.

In a civilised society, both parents should feel able to parent their children whether together or apart.

No parent should feel stigmatised and disenfranchised.

No child or parent should needlessly live in poverty.

And no child should be needlessly orphaned from one of their parents.

Because both parents matter!

September 2016 Appendix 1

Example of calculation of benefits for shared care arrangements

Benefits are only paid to the primary carer. For example:

A single mother with 1 child of primary school age, working 16 hours/week on minimum wage, living in 2 bed property rented from the private section at £750/calendar month, the child stays with paying parent 180 nights per year, 51% of the child's time is spend with the Primary Carer. The ‘parent with care’ receives:

£7,300 in working tax credit and child tax credit £363.76 council tax support £5,424.51 Housing Benefit £1,076.40 Child Benefit

Total Benefits £14,164.67

Employment income £5,529.60 Child support £468

Total income £20,162.27

The NRP (father) earns £12,960 gross per year, £11,980 net. He has to pay a further £468 in child support living in the same 2 bed house working 37.5 hours per week. He receives £1,529.65 in housing benefit.

Total income £13,509.65

Despite the fact both parents are caring for their child in virtually equal amounts, one parent is working a full 37.5 hours per week, but only receiving £13,509.65 net, while the other is working only 16 hours per week and receiving over £20k net. This creates a massive disparity in the households and will almost certainly lead to the father having to give up his accommodation and give up seeing his child overnight. Appendix 2

Other insightful comments made multiple times are shown below for reference. a. .”They could promote a confidential model to enable people to work out what they might be asked to pay under different circumstances.” b. “a facility on my online CMS a/c where I can print off a CMS statement that I am up to date on my payments with nothing outstanding. My ex lies to everybody, courts, school, family that I don't properly support our daughter financially.” (a few suggest something similar including explanation of arrears) c. “Would be nice to have one caseworker alone who is the main point of contact instead of different people who don’t know what you are talking about every time you call up” d. “Stop assuming that what the mother says is true. The mother should have to prove what is said just as much as the father is expected to prove.” e. “stop sending threats of prison with every letter” f. “Stop treating the paying partner as non human” and “genuine empathy with fathers” (many) g. “Employ staff who treat you with decency and who do not dismiss you as unimportant.” h. “be sensitive to individual needs” i. “More guidance, assistance and respect for payers. Payers seem to be treated as debtors from day one.” j. “A proper, independent investigation into complaints, not one where you feel that the person has passed you to office cleaner.” k. “mediation by both parents with CMS about money” a few suggested leaving it to courts l. “Please also mention maintenance orders for foreign "exes". The present system doesn't work.” m. “They have lost sight of the original purpose they were set up for.” n. “It does not take into account the disparity between a lower earning parent and a higher earning parent” (many such comments)