PRESS RELEASE

16^th February 2018 - for immediate release

FNF tells BBC Radio 4 Money Box programme that Heidi Allen MP’s Child Maintenance Bill gets headlines by focussing on the problems of the rich.

But she fails to address the underlying problems of child support for both separated parents.

DWP officials undertake to investigate issues of ‘affordability’.

As backbench MP Heidi Allen’s Child Maintenance Bill approaches its second reading on 23^rd February, BBC Radio 4 Money Box Programme is looking at the problems with the current child support system.

Taking part in the programme FNF spokesman Michael Lewkowicz says the system is still set up to pit separated parents against each other and undermines any goodwill they may have to collaborate in the parenting of their children.

The reality is that for the vast majority, separation affects both parents financially but the anecdotal cases on which Heidi Allen relied at the first reading of her 10 minute rule bill diverts attention from the problems of the majority.
Specifically, the current formula for Child Maintenance:

Dear Ms Allen,

Re: Child Maintenance Service (CMS)

I am writing this open letter to you as we are being contacted by many service users who are anxious about your draft Child Maintenance (Assessment of Parent’s Income) Bill which is due to have its second reading on 27th April 2018. We were pleased to have had the opportunity to provide evidence relating to Child Maintenance to the Select Committee for Work and Pensions inquiry that reported last year1. The report did not address key points we raised and we suspect that, had it not had to be prepared in a hurry prior to the dissolution of Parliament on 3 May 2017, it may have resulted in a more balanced and authoritative report and perhaps a more even-handed draft bill.

We are pleased to report, however, that the evidence on affordability that we and Dr Christine Davies of Royal Holloway University of London submitted to the Committee has been accepted by DWP to be accurate and they have begun assessing the scale of the problem and potential remedies. Frank Field MP suggested on 26 February 2018 that we write to you directly about these. We were disappointed to learn that you felt unable to make the time to discuss our concerns and suggestions for amendments to your bill prior to its second reading. We respectfully ask you to reconsider so that we can discuss the proposed draft so it may be amended uncontentious during its passage through Parliament.

I would like to thank the Committee for inviting us to give oral evidence to its inquiry on 16 November 2016 and for recommending in its report that the Department for Work and Pensions consult us as a stakeholder group. I am pleased to report that those meetings are going ahead and have been productive. However, the consultation was a year and a half ago and the issues being raised in your draft bill were not discussed, nor were we consulted on the bill itself. Also, the key matters not being taken into account in the draft bill are:

• affordability of assessments made by CMS and
• shared parenting – which the current formula does not apportion fairly

Affordability

We want children to be properly supported whether they are jointly or singly parented, however, there are fundamental flaws in the formula for Child Maintenance that make it unaffordable for many paying parents. The problem applies both under the old benefits system and under Universal Credit, resulting in paying parents on low income being pushed into poverty or out of work. It means that, for many, work does not pay. The fact that Universal Credit and other benefits do not take into account Child Maintenance for either receiving or paying parents is, in our view, an omission that makes the system not only unfair to parents, but an unnecessary burden on the taxpayer.

Affordability and Self-Employment

With a good deal of the focus of your proposed bill being on self-employed paying parents we think it helpful to consider that the average income of those in self-employment is £12,500 per annum or £240 a week2; £228 after deductions3.

Someone on such an income with two children would need to pay £45.60 a week4 Child Maintenance. If they lived in outer London, a single ‘box’ room in a house share would cost them around £100 a week, if they had to travel to work daily on London Underground their transport costs might be over £40 a week, leaving around £40 a week or £6 a day to live on, buy clothes, pay for visits to children, etc.

Add to this that many of these parents will be part of the ‘gig economy’, on zero hours contracts or receiving irregular income, is it surprising that many struggle to meet Child Maintenance demands derived from assessments that don’t take into account their essential costs of living? Currently CMS will not take into account variations in income unless they exceed 25%. We propose that this variation threshold should be no more than 7% to 10%.

You may recall one of the case studies in the VT on the Victoria Derbyshire Show last year 5 showed a father who was a children’s entertainer. We have no information on that case, but can’t help but wonder what kind of income he may have and how regular that is. From the tone of the piece, we also wonder whether he is seeing his child(ren). Involved dads are far more likely to be supportive financially if they are not prevented from contributing their love and care.

‘Deadbeats’

Given the above, it is upsetting to many of our service users to see certain sections of the media refer to them offensively using the general term ‘deadbeats’ even if they are experiencing genuine difficulties with payments of Child Maintenance based on an unworkable formula. A number of fathers reported to us feeling upset and hurt by the use of this word on the Work and Pensions Select Committee’s website6. We agree with them that it plays to a stereotype and does not assist in creating a culture of constructive engagement. We ask the Committee to review this and remove the word ‘deadbeats’ from its website.

Shared Parenting

We draw your attention to the fact that the Government supports shared parenting after separation, but the current CMS formula does not and on the contrary penalises parents who do. When parents share care 50/50, unless they agree amongst themselves not to claim Child Maintenance via CMS, only one parent will receive 4/7 of assessed Child Maintenance (and all
the other benefits!) whilst the other receives nothing and still has to make payments, irrespective of relative income. The single parent charity Gingerbread agreed that there is a problem when they gave oral evidence to your committee, stating that “there should be a look at those shared care rules where at the moment it is just a source of dispute between parents”7. We urge you to consider adding a section to your proposed bill to address this anomaly. It would be very unfair to continue to ignore it.

Cost to the Taxpayer

We note that at the first reading of your bill it was stated8 that the issue of non-payment was “forcing the parents with care on to benefits” and is a “double hit to the taxpayer”. We agree that tax evasion is bad and needs to be dealt with by HMRC, however, it should be clarified that welfare support is provided to the ‘Parent With Care’ irrespective of whether they receive no child maintenance at all or £1,000 a week, so unless this too is addressed there will not be a saving to the taxpayer.

12 Month Rule

FNF agree with you that this rule does not work. It needs to be replaced with something more sophisticated. In its current form, it is open to abuse by both receiving and paying parents. When financial matters are resolved in court, judges have an opportunity to review in detail both parties’ finances, responsibilities and agreements. It does not make sense that a mere 12 months later such agreements can be discarded and a far more crude CMS formula applied. Paying parents may, as you suggest, seek to hide or diminish their income and end up with much lower payments. Similarly, receiving parents who agreed in court not to claim Child Maintenance, for example, in return for the paying parent clearing shared debt, may then renege on such agreements by applying to CMS after 12 months to claim a share that is far in excess of what was already agreed in court.

Lifestyle Test

We have pragmatic and fairness concerns about this as currently proposed. This test was scrapped a few years ago because it did not work. DWP have stated in their recent consultation9 that many of their investigations into lifestyle beyond stated earnings revealed that the lifestyle was financed by debt rather than income. In any event, any such test, to be fair, should take into account both parents’ financial positions. We often see paying parents who live in poverty, unable to provide a few treats for their children when they visit, whilst their ex-partners enjoy a lavish lifestyle and receive Child Maintenance from them. Most paying parents, however, are on low incomes and many are carrying debts resultant from legal fees whilst seeking to maintain relationships with their children after separation, so this proposal, even if effective, addresses a small minority problem.

We have stated in the recent DWP consultation10 that

“Until work is complete on assessing the affordability of the current Child Maintenance Formula and its failure to reflect shared parenting arrangements it would be wrong for draconian enforcement measures to be introduced that will push some paying parents out of work, into deeper poverty, despair, ill health and suicide. Until this work is done, current proposals place the cart before the horse”.

We further, respectfully ask, you to review in detail the response we prepared to the DWP consultation on Child Maintenance last month which is enclosed/attached for your convenience. We also hope you might take-up our invitation to meet, not just with us, but with our service users at one of our support meetings. The proposed draft of the bill will mostly affect a small number of high net-worth individuals. Can it be right, when there are so many fundamental flaws with current arrangements, that such a piece-meal, selective approach is taken? We feel sure that a more even-handed approach will result in more workable and fairer legislation with better outcomes for tens of thousands of children in whose interest it is, we trust, proposed.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Michael Lewkowicz
Director of Communications

cc: Select Committee
Work and Pensions Committee
Frank Field MP (Chair)
Kit Malthouse MP
Parliamentary Under-Secretary DWP

PRESS RELEASE 21st January 2019 : For Immediate release

The Draft Government Domestic Abuse Bill must protect the vulnerable, including those who are falsely accused

Academic career - economics, sociology and social policy studies. Scholarly writing included family policy. Now retired and working part-time.

Mainly Voluntary Organisation activist. Took a ‘Council of Voluntary Service’ from first worker desk hunting to a £1.5m outfit, 400 member organisations. Member of Social Services and other local government committees, involved in grant applications of maybe £20m, NCVO tutor, etc etc.

Meet criterion 3 of the desired characteristics, (but charity, not commercial) 
Skills to offer in areas 5,6,7,8 and 9.

Interest in FNF for the usual reason. Non-coping mother given control. Children returned when old enough to decide and stayed until adults.

Initially branch activist. Became trustee responsible for policy and communications. Helped change perception of us from ‘an organisation that must never be given respectability’ (Jenni Murray on Woman’s Hour) to being in the top division of voices about family policy. Became Chair when we had 1.6 FTE staff and a budget of £35k. On resigning, 16 staff and £360k. Changes in Statute Law (e.g the award of PR to signatories of the birth certificate, others), many in administration and policy. (Mostly now lost). Half a million acts of help p.a. Did most things initially. Grant applications, speaking at meetings, policy papers, media appearances, evidence to Parliamentary committees….). Personal work was not the key. That was knowing how to tackle problems and developing teams.

Recent work in London branch, eg Parental Alienation and Accusations of Abuse workshops.

Committed to making us more welcoming, transparent and energetic. FNF current work - if seen by looking at the office alone - is impressive, but not compared with what is needed and achievable.

Wayne became a trustee at the AGM on 16th November 2014. He was proposed by Jenny Cuttriss, Chair of FNF Northampton, and seconded by James Cooper, Secretary of FNF Leicester.

Wayne served for 13 years in the Household Calvary, followed by 21 years in the Police service. He finished his time in the Army having risen to senior NCO instructor level, and completed several tours of duty in Northern Ireland. As a Police officer his ambition was always to serve the public. He remained a uniformed front line immediate response officer. Wayne was trained as an advanced driver, firearms officer and tutor constable. He is now semi-retired, and devotes his time between his daughter who has ambitions to become a vet, FNF commitments and part time work to pay for the upkeep of his horse.

Wayne joined FNF around 2000/1 following separation from his wife and the start of long extended proceedings in the Family Courts up to High Court level . He has experienced the same problems as the majority of FNF members, having acted as an LIP (Litigant in person), used Mckenzie friends, solicitors and barrister when funds allowed.

Wayne always wanted to give something back to FNF for all the help, advice, support, kind words of sympathy and the odd shoulder to lean/cry on of far too many good people to mention.

With his background in Criminal Police work, Wayne soon became aware of the gaps in the Family Courts and Cafcass’s ability to identify and correctly report domestic emotional abuse that is caused when one parent denies the other access to their children.

Wayne has worked behind the scenes for many years in conjunction with National Office on projects. Over the last two years one FNF project he is leading is trying to get CAFCASS to accurately report denial of court ordered contact as domestic abuse. He represents FNF on his local family justice board. Five years ago Wayne set up FNF Leicester. The Branch is a great success with over 250 people attending each of the last 4 years. He works closely with FNF Northampton and FNF Burton pooling resources and experience to give members the best possible help.

Wayne would like to see FNF’s profile raised in the public domain. He hopes that the work FNF does, including individuals, branches/groups, and the charity, will bring about the speedy significant changes needed within the Family Courts so all children wherever possible get to spend significant time, mid-week, weekends, holidays with both parents.

Ian joined FNF in 2012 following his retirement. His interest in issues relating to fathers started when he became a parenting adviser for Tower Hamlets Education Authority in 2001. Ian ran parenting courses , and was concerned that fathers were usually overlooked.

Ian currently edits the Branch Newsletter which is circulated to all volunteers and is Chair and founder member of the East London Branch. He assists members with practical support and form filling advice. He also provides emotional support to service users facing the intensely emotional, and what can become brutal, separation process.

Ian’s career was primarily in education, mostly in secondary schools and Pupil Referral Units where he became a Deputy Head. In the final years prior to retirement he worked as an Education Adviser.

As a trustee Ian is keen to develop cooperation between London branches and fill the geographic gaps with additional groups. He would also like to develop a Separated Parents Course which would help dads and mums with the myriad complex problems associated with separation and divorce.

Andrew Crumpton has been a trustee of Families Need Fathers for over a decade and has had several roles during that time including acting CEO, Vice Chair for many years and even a brief spell as Chair and managing trustee. He joined the board when he was asked by the then Chair John Baker to set up a national helpline following an offer by Channel 4 to publish our helpline number (which we didn’t have at that time). The rest as they say is history.

During the last decade, there has been a lot of changes within the Charity, and Andrew has witnessed and been part of them all. He has worked in the office, ran a branch for several years and supported individuals in numerous cases at different courts of all tiers.

Unfortunately despite supportive words from the Court of Appeal, he has lost contact with his eldest daughter, however he remains hopeful that she will one day choose to seek him out.

He is married and has a daughter and son at home. He works full time as a teacher in secondary school. His work as a teacher has reinforced his belief that children benefit from good quality contact with both parents and that a child’s welfare is best served by both parents working cooperatively together for their child’s best interests. This is where the work of Families Need Fathers can and does make a social Impact in addition to the valuable work done supporting families during separation.

Lee joined Families Need Fathers in 2009 and attended branch meetings to try to ensure that his daughter was able to have a full relationship with her paternal family. In 2010 because of the valuable support received at the branch meetings Lee began volunteering for FNF as an Outreach Volunteer at the Liverpool office shortly before funding for this came to an end. Lee has been involved in fundraising for FNF including volunteering at Glastonbury to raise money, supermarket bag packing and through being sponsored to complete a half marathon for Families Need Fathers. Lee began volunteering on the FNF national helpline in 2011 and continues to volunteer taking calls on the local branch helpline.

Lee comes from a professional background in accountancy and finance, and also in quality and risk management, he is a fluent Spanish speaker and had been working overseas for 4 years before returning to the UK to ensure that his daughter was able to see him after separating from his daughter’s mother. Lee became a Trustee of Families Need Fathers in 2011 and as well as sitting on the national council has sat on various subcommittees in relation to his professional experience.

Lee occasionally acts as a volunteer McKenzie Friend to help people and to use his experience of the family courts in a positive way, and because he is a firm believer in Families Need Fathers and the importance to children of maintaining proper family relationships - because both parents matter.

Greg Downing became a member of FNF a number of years ago and received amazing support from the Northampton branch. He wanted to give back to FNF and make a difference to peoples lives through support and improving the family justice system. He has started an FNF group as well as working as a Mckenzie friend specialising in cases of parental alienation, and involved globally bringing awareness to this family dynamic which seriously harms children. 

Greg has been on the board of two other children charities as well as working as a volunteer raising funds and working for Homestart. He is a qualified and registered family mediator. Greg has previously worked globally as a business consultant and was involved in delivering the IT service delivery strategy for 2012 Olympics. His MBA specialised in entrepreneurship, innovation and business start ups. Greg is passionate about giving children the best start in life, positive parenting, gender equility,shared responsibility parenting and positive collaborative change. Greg is also a health expert teaching mind body training, postive change, yoga and life coaching.

On 12th March 2020, all Trustees appointed Greg Downing as FNF new chair during an online National Council meeting.

Phil has two boys aged 5 and 9 lives in London, and is separated from his wife. He has been a trustee (Treasurer position) since September 2012 when he volunteered to help with the charity’s finances. His first task was to review the financial statements and take a look through the ledgers. Phil is a graduate and qualified as a Chartered Accountant 20 years ago. Since then he has had a successful career in auditing, commercial finance, management consulting and, more recently, change management on programmes and initiatives from start-up to post go-live. For many years he led internal and external audit teams throughout the UK, Europe and the USA.

Pursuing a career first in finance and then into systems and technology Phil is keen on value added activities and process improvement. He has worked with large software packages and in-house development. Most of Phil’s career has been in the media sector. In his role as change manager he works across teams, working across internal teams and with senior management to deliver change and improvements at the head office of a major multi-national media organisation.

Just like most of the FNF membership Phil went through a difficult time when his wife wanted a separation and he turned to FNF for help and support. He was impressed by the work of branch level volunteers and was able to get handy advice. He wanted to give something back and this is his first trustee position. He has been involved at a crucial time as the charity has had to change to survive budget cuts and keep servicing the large membership on limited funds.

Phil grew up in West Yorkshire and graduated in Newcastle Upon Tyne. Outside of work he has a passion for football, cricket, tennis and music.