Conclusion
A brief comparison of recent attempts to address the child support problem
in the UK reveals that despite modifications over the last ten years,
compliance has remained poor. This can largely be attributed to the Treasury
driven basis to the original legalisation which failed to give many parents
an incentive, and which combined with administrative incompetence, resulted
in a failing and discredited system. Whether this can be addressed by
a rhetoric of relieving child poverty and a £10 disregard for IS
claimant parents is debatable. Without increased compliance the new formula
is unlikely to be any more successful than the old. The continuing and
accelerating changes in family form mean that the problem continues to
be urgent and pressing for many families. The pre-CSA sexism that underpinned
the court system, where a PWC was condemned to an almost inescapable poverty
trap was not the reason for the original CSA but it was a problem that
it was hoped would be addressed as an incidental benefit of saving the
tax payer money.
But the most vociferous objections to the CSA have never been about competence,
or lack of it, on which an NRP and PWC could agree, or indeed on the feminisation
of poverty. Attention has focused upon complaints by disgruntled NRPs
and their new partners (and families) who were able to capture public
sympathy as perceived exorbitant amounts were demanded from the "soft
targets" by a rigid and inflexible formula. In order to address these
problems (including the retrospective nature of the legalisation) the
formula became increasingly complicated. In order to deal with this, a
new formula is to be introduced, but with radically lower sums anticipated,
which are unlikely to reflect the true cost of children. This is "rough
justice" once more, and it is debatable how long it will be before
this is tinkered and modified in order to address the most glaringly unfair
of individual circumstances. A most significant change and a real recognition
of the reality of family life is the recognition of stepchildren as a
responsibility for the NRP. This severing of the strict financial / biological
link reflects one of the little acknowledged successes of the CSA 1991.
Public attitudes to fathering are changing, and the value of their function
gaining increased recognition, which only becomes disturbing when prioritised
over mothering, which continues to be taken for granted. Pressure groups
and men's groups have successfully aligned their rights with the welfare
of their children [67].
While the lower percentages do not reflect the true cost of children,
and the spin that everyone will be better off is both misleading and dishonest,
it is possible that such lower amounts will result in better compliance
rates ensuring more PWC and children will be able to take advantage of
the more inclusive tax and social polices of the present government; i.e.
WFTC, New Deal for Lone Parents, Child Care Credits, etc. A rigid formula
will lead to injustice, and it has been demonstrated by CSA 1991 and 1995
that increasingly complicating the formula is simply not viable (a return
to the courts has never seriously been considered). It is to be hoped
that having learnt form the past, CSPASSA 2000 will upset
sufficiently few, to became a credible and effective way of collecting
CS from NRPs, helping to improve the lives of children.
Notes
[67] Amongst others the Families Need Fathers, the UK Men's Movement,
the Campaign for Justice in Divorce, and the Equal Parenting Council
|