The Child Maintenance Service (CMS) was created to ensure that children receive financial support when their parents live apart. In principle, it should provide a clear route for calculating maintenance, collecting payments, and dealing with non-compliance, but for many families, however, the experience is far from straightforward. Delayed enforcement, disputed income figures, incorrect calculations, and poor communication can turn an already difficult separation into a prolonged financial crisis.
A recent BBC Panorama investigation reported experiences from both sides of the system. Some receiving parents described struggling to obtain maintenance while substantial arrears accumulated; paying parents, meanwhile, spoke of incorrect liabilities and demands for money they said they did not owe. Although the circumstances differed, the common feature was the sense of being trapped in a process that was slow to recognise mistakes and difficult to challenge.
Child maintenance is not merely an accounting exercise between former partners. It pays towards food, clothing, heating, housing, and the ordinary costs of raising a child. When the system fails, the effects can spread throughout both households and, ultimately, affect the very children it is intended to support.
The role of the Child Maintenance Service
The CMS operates in England, Wales, and Scotland, with Northern Ireland having its own statutory child maintenance system. It will usually become involved where parents cannot agree a private arrangement or where a private agreement has broken down.
A calculation is based upon the paying parent’s gross taxable income, usually using information supplied by HM Revenue and Customs. The amount may then be adjusted to reflect factors such as other children living in the paying parent’s household and the number of nights the child stays with them.
Parents can use Direct Pay, under which the CMS calculates the liability, but payments pass directly between the parents. Alternatively, the Collect and Pay service allows the CMS to collect the money from the paying parent and transfer it to the receiving parent. Collection fees normally apply to both parties, which means the paying parent pays more while the receiving parent receives less than the assessed amount.
However, a calculation is only as reliable as the information on which it is based. Problems can arise when income records are out of date, a change in circumstances has not been processed, or the CMS holds incorrect information about shared care, other children, or the identity of a qualifying child.
The consequences of CMS errors
For a paying parent, an inaccurate calculation can create an immediate liability that bears little resemblance to their actual circumstances. A person might be assessed using income from an earlier, better-paid job, even though their earnings have since fallen substantially. Another parent may find that the CMS has recorded an incorrect number of children or has not applied the proper reduction for shared care.
Receiving parents can be harmed just as severely. If income is understated or enforcement is delayed, the household in which the child mainly lives may be left without essential money. One parent featured in the BBC investigation reportedly accumulated almost £10,000 in unpaid maintenance and had to rely on food banks, while another described skipping meals after payments stopped.
Hidden income and unreliable calculations
The CMS normally starts with income information provided by HMRC. This is a sensible administrative approach, but it can produce an incomplete picture where the paying parent is self-employed, controls a company, or receives income in a form that is not immediately visible in ordinary tax records.
A business owner might retain profits within a company rather than drawing a conventional salary. Another parent may receive dividends, rental income, or other financial benefits that are not fully reflected in the initial calculation. In appropriate circumstances, the receiving parent can seek a variation so that certain additional income is taken into account.
The reverse problem can also occur; a temporary increase in income, an exceptional bonus or an outdated tax figure may produce an assessment that no longer reflects what the paying parent earns. The statutory rules determine when a change is sufficient to justify recalculation, so a modest reduction in earnings will not necessarily alter the liability.
Disputes about shared care
The number of overnight stays can affect the weekly maintenance calculation, and this creates a particularly sensitive area of dispute because disagreements about a child’s living arrangements become inseparable from arguments about money.
One parent may say that the child stays with them every weekend, while the other records fewer overnight visits. Informal changes during school holidays, cancelled contact, and arrangements that vary from month to month can make the position difficult to establish.
Arrears and ineffective enforcement
Receiving parents often approach the CMS because voluntary payments have stopped, and may therefore be financially vulnerable before the process even begins. If enforcement is then slow, arrears can rise while the child’s everyday needs remain unchanged.
The CMS has significant enforcement powers, and depending upon the circumstances, it can make deductions from earnings, benefits, or bank accounts. It may also seek a liability order and pursue further action against property or other assets. More serious sanctions can include disqualification from driving, restrictions involving a passport and imprisonment, although such measures are reserved for appropriate cases.
However, having enforcement powers and using them effectively are completely different matters. A receiving parent may know that the paying parent is working or appears to have sufficient resources but still experience months of missed payments. This can be exacerbated by the creaking system, as applicants are repeatedly providing the same information to different caseworkers which adds to the frustration.
There can also be legitimate disputes about the arrears figure. Payments made directly may not have been credited correctly, or a retrospective adjustment may have altered the account. Cash payments are especially difficult to prove and should be avoided unless a proper receipt is obtained.
The limited role of the family court
It is understandable that frustrated parents sometimes turn to the family court, hoping a judge can correct the problem. In most ordinary cases, however, the child maintenance scheme restricts the court’s power to make or alter routine maintenance arrangements.
The court retains jurisdiction in certain circumstances, such as additional expenses connected with a child’s disability or education and top-up maintenance where the paying parent’s income exceeds the statutory maximum used by the CMS. The court may also deal with financial provision under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989, including claims involving housing or lump sums for a child.
These are specialist provisions rather than a general alternative to the CMS. A parent cannot normally bypass the statutory process simply because they believe the CMS has reached the wrong decision or they are dragging their feet on enforcement.
The human cost of a failing system
The harm caused by CMS errors cannot always be repaired by adjusting a figure months later. By that stage, a receiving parent may have borrowed money, fallen behind with rent, or gone without essentials. A paying parent may have accumulated debt, lost financial stability, or suffered serious damage to their mental health.
The purpose of child maintenance is to support children, not to deepen conflict between their parents. When the system works, it can provide stability and reduce the scope for financial arguments after separation. When it fails, the consequences can be devastating for the entire family.
Find The Best Divorce & Family Lawyers Near You
We independently review and list the top divorce lawyers and family solicitors in the towns and cities near you. 100% free.
The information on this website is to be considered a guide and is therefore not legal advice. You use this information with the understanding that Wiselaw does not accept liability for any direct or indirect losses as a result of anyone relying on or acting upon the information on this website. Whilst we endeavour to provide accurate information, Wiselaw does not accept liability for any errors or omissions on this website.
