A false picture that does children no favours

Stereotypes can be compelling, not least because in order to function they must have a strong basis in reality. The law can often be a blunt instrument, so there is an obvious attraction in designing a scheme around a stereotypical model which can be applied to the greatest number of cases and aim for the widest public support.

The existing model of child support is based on one non-resident parent paying child support to a parent with-care — and by and large it is assumed that the non-resident parent is the father and the parent with-care the mother.

This does not take into account the various forms that post-separation relationships between parents, and between parents and their children, can take. Instead, it leads to the stereotypical model that assumes that separated families consist of mothers struggling to bring up their children alone while relatively wealthy fathers consciously seek to hide their income and avoid payment.

This is undoubtedly true in some cases, but that in itself is insufficient to be the basis of a comprehensive child support scheme — and certainly not any scheme aiming to support both children and their parents.

Many parents do not live in static family formations, as the process of their separation itself demonstrates. Both parents-with-care and non-resident parents will likely re-partner, perhaps with new partners with their own children, and they may go on to have children with these new partners. There are numerous different shared care arrangements, from a 50:50 division to one night a week or an alternate weekend, and it is doubtful that any system could account for all circumstances in a satisfactory way.

The point to be made here is not about calculations and assessments and figures, but about the symbolism of law and social policy, the significance of gender and the possibility of a reorganisation of parenting in 21st-century Britain. This may seem to be beyond the narrow remit of legal intervention, but the government has already taken a lead in this area with the introduction of paternity leave. Besides, law is one of the key contributors to the way in which people understand themselves as parents, and legal change can therefore be an excellent if unpredictable way of encouraging different parenting perspectives.

Under New Labour, the role of child support payments in reducing public expenditure has been down-played in favour of a focus on alleviating child poverty. Whilst important, this perhaps equates too comprehensively the welfare of the children in separated families with financial well-being.

The problem, then, is that this fits too easily with the gender stereotype of the father-as-breadwinner and mother-as-carer (and receiver), rather than emphasising that children benefit from the care, as well as the financial input, of both parents.

Although child support is crucial to many families, a large percentage of parents who receive it are not in poverty and many non-resident parents of children in families experiencing poverty will not be able to provide enough child support income to make a truly significant difference. Although the reduction of child poverty is important and should be integral to any child support scheme, it should not be the only focus.

The courts, the CSA and the government do not link contact and child support, but many parents do. There is already some official linking, given that overnight stays can decrease the amount of child support payable.

The focus of the child support redesign and of the new agency is the calculation and collection of maintenance — Sir David Henshaw made it clear in his report that while taking financial responsibility for one’s children is a ‘key parental responsibility’, ‘wider issues’ around contact and ongoing relationships were outside of the remit of the redesign.

Perhaps an agency involved with collection and enforcement should not be involved closely in parents’ relationships. But that is not to say that C-MEC could not be an integrated part of a wider child support and parent support network. If we move away from the caricature of the wealthy, feckless father and the poverty-stricken single mother, what are we left with? A large group of parents trying to do the best for their children.

They may, at times, get this wrong. They may get wrapped up in issues with former partners that detract from their best efforts. But broadly, the starting assumption should be that both parents wish to do the best for their children. Some fathers may not have any interest in paying child support, and may actively seek to avoid it — in which case, effective enforcement measures need to be in place. But we would also argue that non- or irregular payment is more often due to many contingent factors which are amenable to interventions aimed at providing information and support.

Another benefit of a more holistic approach would be to support a social expectation of joint care for children. While law and social policy have to work with social reality and seek solutions to problems as they are found, there is also a degree to which legal practice can seek to build on and expand existing social expectations.

In this case, a challenge to the gender-stereotypical view of (non-resident) father as provider and mother as carer, and a promotion of dual-role parenting will ultimately be to the benefit of parents and children.

Dr Steve Millett is at the Centre for Separated Families. www.separatedfamilies.org.uk