In January the government published 'Improving Child Support' (Cm 2745), its White Paper proposing various changes to the scheme set up by the Child Support Act 1991 ( 'the Act').

Changes to the formula will be in regulations, now in draft and due to come into operation in April.More fundamental reforms are contained in the Child Support Bill now going through Parliament.

Because this Bill, if enacted, creates a scheme which interrelates more closely with that under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, and because the departures system, considered below, creates so many areas for discretion and in terms very similar to s.25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, the Bill's provisions should be considered now.-- The Child Support BillThe Bill superimposes on the Act a series of additional sections, schedules and amendments to existing sections.

Thus an Act, relatively simple in structure (as distinct from content), with 58 sections and five schedules will become almost half as long again.

And a large number of sets of regulations are anticipated by the Bill.

In short, if the Bill becomes law - and barring a snap general election, it will - an original copy of the Act will bear only a shadowy resemblance to the law when the new Act comes into force in April 1996.The main thrust of the Bill is in the 'departures' system foreshadowed by the White Paper ch 2.

This candidly recognised criticism of the Act's inflexibility and has tried to mitigate this.

In so doing the Bill creates a system which will be far more elaborate than that operated by district judges under the parallel court jurisdiction.This is not the place for a critique of the two systems; but after reading the Bill one is left with the image of a gardener who covers his garden with stone to grow plants in pots.

When that fails and he wants ordinary flower-beds again, rather than dig up the stone he puts patches of new soil on top of it.

Let us see if the plants grow any better that way: for the departures system is that new soil.-- Departure directionProvision for the system of 'departures' is inserted as ss.28A to 28I of the Act.

A departure direction must be applied for by either parent (s.28A).

The application can be turned down on a preliminary consideration by the secretary of state (s.28B); or it may be determined by the secretary of state or referred to a child support appeal tribunal for determination (s.28D(1)).The Act - as it was intended - drifts from the formulaic rock on to the sands of discretion: the words beloved of all common lawyers, 'just and equitable', appear in s.28F(1)(b).

If the secretary of state considers that one of the prescribed departure cases applies, and it seems just and equitable so to do, a departure direction may be given.-- Cases and controlsSched 2 to the bill inserts sched 4B into the Act, and the difficulties of construction develop.

In outline part I of the new schedule is relatively clear: a departure direction may be given (a) where the applicant has 'special expenses' which could not have been taken into account in determining the assessment; (b) where there is a court order or agreement transferring property as a result of which maintenance for children is less; or (c) in additional cases mostly where a parent artificially or notionally reduces income.This is only the bones of the statutory scheme: there are numerous references to regulations yet to be drawn up, some of which will cast the discretionary net much wider.

For example, by s.28F(3) the secretary of state may define by regulations what is to be regarded as 'just and equitable'.The 'special expenses' will be prescribed, such as (see sched 4B para 2 per white paper para 2.5) travelling expenses to work, costs of maintaini ng contact, costs of supporting another child in the absent parent's new family, debts incurred during the parent's relationship and so on; though not, even now, child care costs.-- Recognising the clean-breakA lot of journalistic hot air has been breathed over the 'clean-break' and child support.

Any family lawyer knows that there is no such thing (Hulley v Thompson [1981] 1 WLR 159; s.102 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 - which, incidentally, is not repealed by this bill).That said, there was a lot of more or less justified resentment at the Act requiring maintenance where men thought they had 'slough[ed] off the tight skin of familial responsibility' (to quote Ward J in Delaney v Delaney [1990] 2 FLR 457 at 461), and given their former matrimonial home in full settlement of all financial claims including child maintenance.

Such settlements will be reflected by a departure direction, but subject to determination - another formula perhaps? - of whether 'the effect of [the settlement] is properly reflected in the current assessment' (para 3(3)).-- Other reformsThe rest of the Bill deals with a miscellany of provisions.

Cl 10 provides for the child maintenance bonus anticipated by the white paper.

This will be paid as part of, but in addition to, the parent with care's benefit.

Again, much of the detail will in regulations.A further incursion into benefits legislation is provided by cl 25, which amends the Social Security Administration Act 1992 to enable the secretary of state, when collecting child periodical payments, to pay benefit in full and to keep the periodical payments.Cll 11 to 18 deal with reviews and appeals.

In particular it enables a child support officer who thinks an assessment has wrongly been made to cancel the assessment.The declaration of parentage provisions are tightened up a little by amendments to s.27 of the Act; and formal provision is made for payment of fees incurred by the secretary of state for scientific (normally DNA) tests by the father, where after testing he does not deny he is the father, or a declaration of parentage is made.

This will all create a lot more work for lawyers; but how we will be paid for it is quite another matter.