|
Learning
from the mistakes of the CSA
Tuesday
February 14, 2006 Guardian Before
the Child Support Act (CSA) came into force, we said that mothers on
benefit and their children would pay the highest price (Only the lessons
remain, February 10). Its first intention was not to collect maintenance
to support children, but to stop single mothers' entitlement to income
support. Even now, with the admission of the CSA's complete failure, the
experiences of mothers on benefit - the great majority of people on the
CSA's books - are being ignored. Thousands
of mothers who have refused to name the father of their children or
authorise the CSA to pursue him for maintenance have seen £22 cut from
their weekly £56 personal income support. This can be waived if a mother
convinces officials that harm or undue distress would result. But women
are routinely not informed of their right or are not believed - despite
government research that shows one in five single mothers gave domestic
violence as a reason for separating. We know from our network that women
have turned to prostitution, crimes of poverty and low wages to protect
loved ones from dependence on violent and uncaring men, and CSA harassment
and bullying. The decision as to whether a father should be pursued for
maintenance must be solely with the mother, who is entitled to help and
financial support for bringing up children, firstly from the state. ------------------- Your
leader (February 10) is correct that there is no silver bullet for the
Child Support Agency. But there are clear lessons to be learned from
Australia. This doesn't mean importing the Australian model wholesale - it
has problems of its own - but it does mean adopting what is good about
their system. For example, collecting payments at source through the tax
system and integrating the administration of payments with greater efforts
to support families tangled in the messy fabric of troubled relationships
through mediation and practical help. Making the whole process supportive
rather than punitive will encourage people to come forward voluntarily and
lift more children out of poverty. -------------------- Based
on my own experiences, the Child Support Agency, seems actually to be a
Treasury Support Agency. Because my former partner lives on benefits the
CSA takes 15% of my post-tax income - and gives £7 a week to my
ex-partner. The rest is clawed back by the Treasury against benefits. The
result: the Treasury impoverishes me while making barely any difference to
my child. This clawback system actively prevents me from helping my child
as my ex also has a legal obligation to declare any financial assistance. |