REFORM: Law Society policy calls for more court involvement and end to payment-contact link


Allowing the court system to have a greater involvement in child maintenance could reduce many of the problems caused by the Child Support Agency (CSA), solicitors have proposed.


In the week the National Audit Office said the £540 million reforms to the agency had not worked, the Law Society said that the imposition of CSA jurisdiction on all families 'has seriously undermined settlements that have been reached fairly in the courts'.


Submitting its policy on CSA reform to Sir David Henshaw - who has been charged by the government with redesigning the child support system - the Society said an amendment to the CSA rules that allows parents to resile from court settlements after a year 'has significantly reduced the ability of parties to reach their own arrangements'.


It said allowing the courts to use their experience to take a broader view of both parties' financial positions would overcome the often overly rigid application of the CSA formula to every case - which the Society said is the cause of much of the resentment towards the CSA. For example, housing costs, existing financial liabilities, and the comparative wealth of the parent with day-to-day care are ignored under the formula, and it is imposed even if it is impossible for the non-resident parent to pay.


'It does not make sense that the courts have before them the complete details of all the parties and make decisions of property adjustment, spousal maintenance and capital, whilst having no control over child maintenance,' the policy said.


The proposal is likely to save costs overall, it added, both of the CSA and possibly state benefits, even if in some cases there may be an increase in legal aid expenditure.


The Society also recommended ending the link between payment levels and the amount of contact the non-resident parent has with the children. 'This has been further fertile ground to the unscrupulous absent parent. Similarly, parents with day-to-day care may be reluctant to agree to additional contact if this will result in a decrease in child support payments. This can often result in tactical gamesmanship to the detriment of all involved.'


It said the only exception should be where there is shared care.


The policy was drawn up by the Society's family law committee.