Despite the crescendo of protest since the Child Support Act came into force in April 1993, ministers continued to insist that its structure was basically sound.

True, there were teething troubles, but in time these would disappear and the public would learn to love the new system.A few months ago that position finally collapsed when the social security minister, Alistair Burt, announced that the Child Support Agency would abandon the pursuit of 'absent fathers' where the mother had been receiving income support before April 1993 - the very cases used to justify the CSA in the first place.The government's new white paper, 'Improving child support', represents a desperate attempt to placate the CSA's existing highly vocal opponents and (just as important) to deflect more wrath to come, when in April 1996 a further group of middle class fathers were due to come within the ambit of the new system.As from this April, no absent parent will have to pay more than 30% of his or her 'normal net income'.

The maintenance formula will take lim ited account of pre-April 1993 clean break settlements, 'high' costs of travelling to work, and the housing costs of a new partner or step-children.

The maximum level of maintenance payable is reduced.The government hopes these immediate changes will silence the noisiest critics.

They do not detract from the basic philosophy of the CSA, ie that child maintenance can and should be fixed according to a mathematical formula, rather than assessed by a court.But the white paper goes much further.

In 1996/97, the Child Support Agency will be able to depart from the formula in a variety of cases.

Despite these exceptions, the white paper hangs grimly on to the idea that 'formula assessment should continue to be the norm'.How much, then, of the non-discretionary, lawyer-free structure established by the Act remains in place? The short answer is that after 1996/97, very little of it.In 1996/97 either parent will be able to apply for the standard clean break adjustment to the formula introduced this April to be 'replaced by a detailed consideration of the circumstances of the individual case'.

Similarly, there will be a right to ask for individual consideration of a case where 'high travel costs cause hardship'.Under the post-1996 system an absent parent will also be able to apply for 'departure' from the formula on the ground that he suffers hardship because, for instance, he has 'high' costs of travel to maintain contact with the child, or because he has special expenses as a result of illness or caring for step-children, or because he has debts from 'the former relationship between the parents'.The parent with care, on the other hand, will be able to object to an assessment as 'unrealistically low because, although the absent parent has been able to demonstrate a low income, he has substantial assets or an extravagant lifestyle inconsistent with income at that level'.The white paper emphasises that a departure will only be allowed if 'it seems fair looking at a case in the round and taking account of all the circumstances'.Clearly, no matter how the detailed rules governing departures are framed, there will be very considerable scope for the exercise of discretion.

The decision as to what is 'fair' will presumably be made by a clerk employed by the Child Support Agency.

Either party, however, will be able to appeal against the clerk's decision to a new child support appeal tribunal.

Doubtless, the CSAT will be chaired by a lawyer, and doubtless it will soon accumulate a body of precedents.

After a year or two, we can expect a legal publisher to produce an encyclopaedia of child support law which would contain the various rulings of the CSAT, together with reports of the numerous appeals to the Court of Appeal on points of law.In introducing the white paper, the social security secretary, Peter Lilley, recalled that the Act went through Parliament without a dissenting vote.

But, of course, this was because the new system was presented as being only a more efficient means of providing maintenance for mothers on benefit who would otherwise look to the taxpayer for support.

It was not explained (in the memorable words of Ros Hepplewhite) that 'middle class men were always meant to be a target, they just didn't realise it', ie that the Act would apply even when the mother was not claiming benefit and where, therefore, the taxpayer had no interest.In this area, the white paper has produced a very characteristic fudge sufficient, it is expected, to see the government through its present difficulties.

Pre-April 1993 maintenance agreements and court orders without a social security aspect will not be taken on by the Child Support Agency after 1996 for the time being.

What of the long term? In 1996/97, this government may have won a general election.

In that case, all bets would be off and the pre-1993 non-benefit cases will be handed back either to the agency or remain with the courts, depending on political pressures at the time.

Alternatively, with a Labour government the poisoned chalice will pass to Harriet Harman, or whoever.In the end, the white paper is a panic driven bodge and filler job which, as its provisions become fully understood, will please no one.

The only clean break settlements of which it proposes to take account, for instance, are those pre-dating April 1993.

But why should a lump sum settlement be precluded in all circumstances?In the case of debts, the revised formula can be adjusted to allow only for those arising out of 'the former relationship between the parties' - as though there could be no other debts which ought justly to be considered.

It continues to be the case that no allowance will be made for obligations which, even if they are not legally enforceable, are no less real and burdensome, eg the cost of supporting an aged parent or seeing children through university.The white paper takes no account of one of the chief criticisms of the CSA, namely that it prevents parents, no matter how well advised, from entering into their own enforceable child maintenance agreements: the officials with their formulas always know best.The Child Support Act was, of course, retrospective in its operation.

None of the white paper's changes will apply retrospectively.

This is so despite the government's belated admission that the new system resulted in a variety of gross injustices.

But, of course, the white paper is to be understood in terms of politics not justice.