header-logo header-logo

14 June 2007
Issue: 7277 / Categories: Legal News , Child law , Family
printer mail-detail

Child support reforms: third time lucky?

The controversial Child Support Agency (CSA) is to be replaced by C-MEC, a body with greatly enhanced powers to force non-resident parents to pay child maintenance.

C-MEC, the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission, will be able to: blacklist defaulting parents from taking out loans and mortgages; take money out of bank accounts; impose curfews; and force parents to surrender their passports. It will have powers to charge errant parents for the cost of tracking them down.

The reforms, outlined in the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill, is an attempt to curb the failures of the CSA, which has an overall debt mountain of £3.5bn including about £760m from debts so long-standing they can no longer be legally enforced.

However, family lawyers are campaigning to amend the proposed reforms. Resolution’s child support committee chair Kim Fellowes, a director at Newcastle firm Dickinson Dees LLP, says Resolution is concerned that, while the government is keen to reduce administrative burdens by encouraging parents to agree their own private arrangements, the proposed reforms contain nothing that would enable parents to enforce these arrangements.

She says it is unclear where parents could go to get help on working out arrangements.

The group points out that there is no information on how historic debt, which can no longer be legally enforced, will be collected and if compensation will be paid to those parents who have lost these maintenance payments through no fault of their own.

Resolution also wants divorce courts to be given the power to cover arrangements for child support payments where they are already involved.
Fellowes adds: “Two versions of the CSA have failed thousands of children and their parents to date and the government’s latest plans look set to continue that trend.”

Issue: 7277 / Categories: Legal News , Child law , Family
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll