Child Maintenance Service 'puts domestic abuse survivors at risk'

Untrained staff and flawed systems failing parents, warn Gingerbread and Women’s Aid

Domestic abuse survivors are being put at risk by the Child Maintenance Service, finds new evidence from Gingerbread and Women's Aid.

The Child Maintenance Service (CMS) is replacing the Child Support Agency (CSA), requiring parents who were using the CSA, or new applicants, to apply to the CMS if they need help to sort out child maintenance.

Domestic abuse survivors are expected to make up 50% of parents applying to the CMS, but Gingerbread and Women's Aid have found that staff working there have no specialist training on how to work with survivors or how to recognise financial coercion.

The CMS insists that all parents initially pay child maintenance directly to each other, requiring the parent with care of the children to supply their bank details to the other parent. The CMS will only step in to collect maintenance if payments are consistently missed.

Gingerbread and Women's Aid are concerned that the lack of specialist training for staff, combined with the expectation that parents interact over payments is leaving survivors open to financial and emotional abuse. They warn that some parents are dropping out of the system entirely because they feel unprotected.

The charities have heard from parents who are too frightened to go ahead with direct payments in case their abuser gets hold of their personal details. While the CMS advises survivors to set up non-geographic bank accounts, there is little clarity over how this will work or help protect those at risk: one survivor told Gingerbread that this would still reveal her new name and another found that her bank couldn't set one up.

Gingerbread Chief Executive Fiona Weir said:

"Child maintenance matters. It helps single parents to provide the essentials for their children, yet less than half of single parent families get any child maintenance at all. This makes the role of the CMS crucial. But it's clear that for the many survivors of domestic abuse who will be turning for the service for help, the CMS is not fit for purpose.

"The service as a whole has to get a better understanding of the support that domestic abuse survivors need. As it stands, children aren't getting the financial support they should and survivors are being put in a vulnerable position."

Gingerbread and Women's Aid have also raised concerns over the impact of charges in the new system. The CMS charges a £20 application fee to open a case. While this is waived for domestic abuse survivors, they have to declare a history of abuse and are not directly asked. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) itself has acknowledged that this will mean many survivors end up paying the fee.

If the CMS does step in to collect unpaid maintenance it imposes charges on both parents. Not only do single parents lose out financially, but some have told Gingerbread that they won't move into the collection system for fear of upsetting the other parent. This leaves some trapped in arrangements where the paying parent gets away with paying what they decide, when they decide.

Polly Neate, Chief Executive of Women's Aid, said:

"Women's Aid calls for the Government to ensure women and children have safe child maintenance arrangements in place by fast-tracking domestic violence survivors to the statutory 'Collect & Pay' system, dropping charges for survivors to use the system and ensuring all staff receive specialist training on domestic abuse. The current system is simply not safe for survivors – change is urgently needed."

Gingerbread and Women's Aid are calling for the DWP to:

Roll out specialist training and clear guidance for CMS staff on how to recognise and work with domestic abuse survivors
Offer survivors the option to fast-track to using the CMS collection service
Drop the 4% collection charges for single parents in cases of domestic abuse and review the 20% charge for the paying parent.
Gingerbread is campaigning for significant improvements to the Child Maintenance Service
For more information click here

Wraparound childcare policy 'failing due to lack of funding'

A report in The Guardian this morning informs us extended school services are failing to meet
after-school and holiday childcare needs.
Government ambitions for schools to provide wraparound childcare before and after lessons,
as well as after-school clubs and holiday activities, are falling short due to inadequate
funding, according to new research seen exclusively by the Guardian.

A report by the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) and the Family and Childcare Trust says
extended school services are popular with schools and families and can improve children’s
outcomes, but current provision is failing to meet parents’ demands for after-school and holiday
childcare.

Almost two fifths (39%) of schools surveyed for the report said parents wanted holiday provision,
but only 29% of schools were able to offer it. For after-school childcare, provided by just over
half of schools, the shortfall was 11 percentage points and was particularly acute in primary
schools.

The report, published on Wednesday, calls on the government to provide a clear vision to
encourage schools to extend their services and provide dedicated funding to pay for it. “Without
this, existing services risk withering on the vine, becoming increasingly reliant on parental
contributions and therefore inaccessible to the most deprived children,” it warns.


Do we need more childcare in schools
The term extended schools refers to services offered through a school to pupils and the wider
community, including sports, arts and homework clubs, as well as wraparound and holiday childcare.

The aim is to enable children – particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds – to broaden
their interests through extra-curricular activities and simultaneously free up their parents to
work, reducing the risk of child poverty.

The research found that children from deprived families use the out-of-school services as much
as their better off peers in the vast majority of schools, but in a small but significant minority
, poorer families use them less – possibly because they cannot afford the parental contributions
most schools require.

Of those surveyed, 84% of head teachers said their extended services were used by a mix of more
and less advantaged families, but 10% said their services were used disproportionately by
better-off families even though the services are usually part-funded by the pupil premium, which
is additional money for schools to raise attainment among disadvantaged pupils.

Three quarters of schools that took part in the survey said they would like to expand the numbers
using their extended services and the range of services offered and a third wanted to expand
their hours.

Two thirds of schools, however, said they could not expand because of a lack of funding,
47% were constrained by limited space and 54% had problems with staffing.
For more information click here

Why we need to talk to our children about sexting

An article by Judith Woods in The Telegraph yesterday reminds us of the
importance of talking to our children. She tells us

“Are you talking about sex offenders? I know a sex offender.”

The adults gathered at last weekend’s barbecue slowed up on their own conversations to listen
in to my friend’s 15-year-old daughter.

“You shouldn’t be eavesdropping,” chided her mother, waving a wine glass.

“If this is about your uncle Desmond, nothing was ever proved,” quipped her dad. “Just because a
man chooses to live in a caravan up a dirt track and reuses his teabags doesn’t make him a
pervert.”

“No, I mean an actual sex offender. On the register and everything. She’s in my class at school.”

Cue slack-jawed disbelief and spluttering all round as the chipolatas
cindered on the BBQ. How could it be? Who could it be?
All you parents out there, if you were taken aback by new revelations from the NSPCC that,
in the last three years, more than 2,000 children have been reported to the police over indecent
images, then I suggest you feel alarmed and outraged instead that children as young as 12 are
risking criminalisation.

My friends live in a commuter town, and their children attend the sort of mixed but robustly
successful state school where pupils are photographed in the local papers leaping into the air
on results day.

Their girl’s friends are the daughters of civil servants and dentists and graphic designers.
And yet one of her classmates – let’s call her Jade – has, at the age of 15, apparently been
questioned by police for the sharing of indecent images.

Jade’s “crime” was to circulate the topless photographs that her friend Lara had taken and sent
to her boyfriend.

Sending “topless nudes”, as they are known by teenagers, is regarded among girls as nasty and
cheap and an offence punishable by social exclusion.

Usually a girl will lose her friends immediately for “being a dirty ho”. On this occasion,
it went much further; Lara received the ultimate in “slut-shaming” when Jade forwarded the
photographs.
What she did was mean and vindictive and cruel. But was it a sex offence? Of course, if you
were Lara’s parents you would probably think it was, and I have every sympathy for them.

But could justice ever be served by branding stupid or malicious or hormonal teenage girls, or
indeed boys, sex offenders? Alongside rapists and abusers and manipulative monsters who groom –
poison – little children with their toxic brew of treats and terror?

To be honest, I’m not at all convinced Jade is on any sex offender’s register. Barbecue gossip
is just that and, curious though they are, I don’t think my friends will be bringing up the
subject with her parents at the proverbial school gates.

But her name is now mired in scandal (as indeed is Lara’s).

Now, from a pragmatic and terribly non-PC perspective, I suppose fears of police raids and
registers might give kids pause before making and
distributing intimate and explicit selfies.

But the real issue is young people’s exposure to violent hardcore on free internet sites,
and “personalised” porn on their handsets.

“Boys send intimate pictures all the time and nobody really cares, because you can’t identify
the person,” sighed my friend’s 15-year-old with a peculiarly disturbing world-weariness. Her
mates all nodded.

We looked at them, a naive bunch of 40+ innocents, with wide eyes and appalled expressions,
wanting to ask the obvious but afraid of the answer.

“Yes, of course, erect. Otherwise what’s the point?” she added with an air of impatience at
our complete hopelessness. “I think it’s revolting, but boys think it’s like porn only more…
personal.”

So there we have it: “personalised porn” for kids who aren’t old enough to have legal sex.

It’s nothing short of tragic that a generation of kids, inured to the selfie culture, is being
seduced or duped or egged on to take pictures of themselves that may well haunt them forever.

Child crime

• One in six people reported for indecent imagery are now aged under 18.
• There were 4,530 cases of indecent imagery in 2013, more than doubling in two years to 10,818 in 2015.
• During that period, 2,000 children were among those reported to police for indecent image offences.
• Police believe sexting has played a significant factor in the rise of child-related investigations.

Solutions?

• The NSPCC has suggested that urgent action needs to be taken, including:
• Internet companies developing technological solutions, including data sharing with the authorities and faster 
• response time to remove indecent images of children when they are found in the public domain.
• The process for removing nude images from internet sites should be streamlined.
• Greater access to support for children and teenagers who have fallen victim to indecent 
• images being shared online.
• Offenders who have been convicted should be offered treatment to reduce their future risk to children.

For more information click here

Guidance published on change of name on official documents

The Policy aims to deter name changes to commit crime

The Home Office has published new guidance on how applications are handled to change names on
official documents.

The guidance notes that the vast majority of people living in the UK change their names on
official documents issued by the Home Office for perfectly legitimate reasons, such as when they
get married. The policy is focussed on achieving two aims: first, helping the genuine applicant
to obtain documents in a change of name with the minimum but necessary level of supporting
information; and second, deterring, disrupting and detecting those who change their names in
order to commit crime or avoid detection.

The guidance applies to applications to changes of names and identities to the following
documents:

• British passports, including emergency travel documents and emergency passports Home Office 
• travel documents 
• biometric residence permits 
• visas 
• right of abode and certificates of entitlement 
• residence documents issued to EEA nationals and their family members, including derivative categories.

Where a person is seeking to change an identity on one of the Home Office documents listed
above the person is required to provide supporting evidence that they intend using that identity
for all purposes of their life. This may include a marriage certificate or a deed poll along
with other supporting documentary evidence that the new name is being used for all purposes
For more information click here

Shared Parental Leave

Introduced in April 2015, the new system allows working couples to share a year off work after
the birth of their child. Aside from the initial two weeks – which the mother must take in order
to recover – they can divide the rest between them.

But while it was hailed as a breakthrough for equality - giving both parents chance to bond with
their babies, and keep their careers on track - why has there been such a dismal take-up by dads?

For many couples contemplating SPL, it seems a simple question of cost: in two-parent families
in which both partners work, men are still the main breadwinners in four in five (78 per cent)
cases, meaning families will lose out financially by the father staying at home.

Whichever parent is on leave receives 90 per cent of their normal salary for the first
six weeks after the birth, which then drops to a statutory £140 a week for the next 33 weeks, and the last three months of a year are left unpaid. Even if couples earn similar amounts, many women receive maternity packages well above and beyond the statutory rate - meaning sharing paternal leave amounts to a financial penalty.
FAQ's
Shared Parental Leave
What is it?
Under laws which came into full effect from April 2015, couples living in mainland Britain are able to divide almost all the traditional maternity leave entitlement between them. It's also available to couples adopting.
How much time can parents take off?
Almost a year. Aside from the compulsory fortnight recovery period new mothers must take after childbirth, the remaining 50 weeks is available to divvy up between parents in any combination.
Does one person always need to be at work?
No, they can take time off together or separately. It's flexible, too, meaning parents could intersperse periods of work and leave, allowing them to return to work for up to 30 days to cover short stints or important projects, then take more time off.
How much does it pay?
Similar to statutory maternity pay: £139.58 a week, or 90% of an employee's average weekly earnings, whichever is lower. Though it is up to an employer if they want to offer more, of course. This is paid for 37 weeks. The other 13, if taken, goes without payment.
What if my boss says no?
If you're eligible, they can't. Unlike other flexible work arrangements, shared parental leave is an employee's right in the same way as maternity leave.
How can I claim it?
First you can check whether you're eligible on the government's website, then give notice to your
employer so that they aren't caught by surprise. It's then simply a case of downloading the
appropriate form to declare your intentions (which can be changed), and booking your blocks of
leave.

For more information click here

Arbitration scheme extends to parental responsibility disputes

Disputes about where children of separated parents should live or how much time they spend with
each parent could be resolved away from the daunting surroundings of a courtroom.

The Family Law Arbitration Scheme, which began in 2012 to deal with financial matters,
is to be extended to disputes concerning parental responsibility, as reported in the Law society
Gazette yesterday.
The scheme was set up by the Institute of Family Law Arbitrators (IFLA), a not-for-profit organisation created by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, Family Law Bar Association and family lawyers’ group Resolution, in association with the Center for Child and Family Law Reform.

IFLA chair Lord Falconer of Thoroton, former shadow justice secretary, said the scheme would
enable couples to resolve disputes ‘more quickly, cheaply and in a more flexible, less formal
setting than a courtroom’.

The scheme will also guarantee confidentiality. ‘These are all important ingredients to
minimising conflict and supporting the best interests of children,’ Falconer said.

Family court judges have the power to adjourn court proceedings for the parties to resolve a
dispute through arbitration. With the court’s approval, the arbitration award can then be made
into an order in those proceedings.

At a time when the courts are under significant pressures, Falconer said the availability of
arbitration for children matters ‘builds on the long and proud tradition arbitration has in
other areas, and gives parents and practitioners another tool with which to resolve family
disputes’.
For more information click here

Unregulated online divorce providers service 10-13% of the market

New research suggests that unregulated online divorce providers service 10-13% of the market

Legal Services Board research reveals extent of unregulated providers' market shares

The Legal Services Board (LSB) has published the findings of its unregulated providers research
project which, it says, significantly advances understanding of unregulated provision of
legal services.

The LSB's 2016 individual legal needs survey indicated that the size of the unregulated sector is
 smaller than originally thought. This new research suggests consumers are using unregulated
providers for a number of reasons, including:

lower prices compared to regulated provider
higher levels of transparency in pricing and
higher levels of innovation and service differentiation.
The main risks for consumers were said to be:

not making informed choices
misleading advertising claims.
According to the research, consumer satisfaction with customer service is broadly comparable
across regulated and unregulated providers: 84% versus 81%.

The research examined, amongst other areas, divorce services. It found that 10-13% of market
share was serviced by unregulated providers, essentially online divorce providers and
fee-charging McKenzie Friends.

In that sector it the researchers identified five active unregulated providers operating 11
websites, serving 23-30,000 clients annually. The service was delivered online and was reliant
on search engine optimisation and adwords. Services range from DIY packages (average price of £36)
 to managed services (average price of £173).

Commenting the research, Law Society chief executive Catherine Dixon said:

"Many legal services can be provided by regulated and unregulated providers. If legal services
are purchased from a solicitor, buyers can rest assured that the service is fully regulated, that
 insurance is in place, and that in the event that something goes wrong they have the right to
redress.

"Unfortunately, however, it is not always clear to consumers whether they are buying from a
regulated provider. As the LSB research shows, there are a number of unregulated providers
supplying the same legal services as solicitors and many buyers simply will not know that they
won't get the same level of protection from an unregulated provider if something goes wrong.

"This can be exacerbated if the unregulated provider calls themselves a lawyer, which is not a
protected title. We think that you should only be able to call yourself a lawyer if you are a
qualified legal practitioner. We are concerned that many consumers may not know the difference,
which can leave them exposed.

"If it is the case that consumers need regulatory protection, such protection should be
consistent across the market. If not, this can lead to unfair competition and a lack of
regulatory protection for some buyers who genuinely believe they will have rights of redress and
are insured in case something goes wrong.

"The expertise of solicitors comes from rigorous training. They work to professional standards,
are regulated, have insurance, and their clients have access to redress if services do not meet
the required high standard.

'There are obvious benefits in improved, consistent price and service transparency in advertising
 across all suppliers of legal services, whether regulated or unregulated. Solicitors are also
bound by a code of conduct which ensures they are transparent about pricing with a client before
beginning work.

"Sometimes, fixed pricing for less complex issues may be the best pricing solution. For many of
the more complex services that solicitors provide, such as family services, clients have more
complex needs and so the price of the service they receive will be determined by their individual
 circumstances and the type of advice they require.

"The profession has a great track record of innovation and creativity in a changing market.
Solicitors embrace new technology to meet the needs of clients, reduce costs and maintain their
competitive edge. This ability to adapt ensures the vibrancy and long term success of the legal
sector in the UK."
Read more here