A Duty to Children

Following District Judge Roger Bird's article about the new child support scheme (see [2002] Gazette, 11 April, 37), I thought it worthwhile to clarify the position with regard to consent orders for child maintenance, which courts retain the jurisdiction to make by virtue of section 8(5) of the Child Support Act 1991.

Consent orders for child maintenance made now, in the run-up to the introduction of the scheme for new cases, will not be subject to the '12-month oust' as Judge Bird describes it.

This will only happen when a date is prescribed for the purposes of section 4(10)(a) of the Child Support Act 1991 (as amended by section 2(2) of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000).

Such a date has not yet been prescribed in regulations.

As Judge Bird makes clear, the introduction of the simplified child support arrangements has been deferred.

Once the government is satisfied that the new computer system to support the delivery of the child support scheme is operating effectively, it will announce when the scheme will start.

Regulations prescribing the date for the purposes of section 4(10)(a) will then be made.

The delay in implementation is regrettable, but we will not introduce a system that does not have our full confidence.

We have a clear duty to parents and children to make sure the system works effectively.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham, Parliamentary under-secretary of state at the Department for Work and Pensions

See Benchmarks