Archive

At present, entitlement to a myriad of tax credits and benefits, not least the "right" to claim through the Child Support Agency is based on recipiency of Child Benefit. The completion of the Child Benefit application form is nothing more than an accident of history - few think about the implications of parents separating at the time of a child's birth. However, in cases of shared care arrangements, be it through the Court or otherwise, the system is fundamentally flawed.
Of course, I speak from experience: I have a 50/50 shared care arrangement with my ex-partner - the care and residency of her is more than shared, it is joint. Because my ex completed the Child Benefit (hereafter "CB") forms shortly after our daughter's birth, she has the legal right to claim through the CSA. The forms for CB are in the Bounty pack delivered to 3.2 million new mothers at the hospital bedside each year. Over the last 3 years, and approx 3000 samples and flyers contained in the pack - 99.8% have been aimed at the mother; 0.2% at the father (last one was back in Sep '06 - 2 cans of Red Bull). The form is in a pack whose contents are specifically aimed (99.8% of the time) at mothers. In most families it will be she who goes through the contents and completes the forms. Once again, the impact of this in the future is realised by very few.

We both look after our daughter exactly 14 nights out of every 28. My ex now earns more than I do as I reduced my hours and salary to be able to care for my daughter 50/50: but, because she initially completed the CB forms, she claims through the CSA from me, and I can claim not a penny from her.
HMRC allow parents to challenge recipiency: however in cases of 50/50, CB remains with the initial applicant, irrespective of income. They look at why it should be taken away, not why the rival applicant should receive it.
So, a double whammy - my ex claims the CB and gets the CSA payment, yet I get nothing.
To the HMRC and the DWP I am the "Non-Resident Parent", my ex, the "Parent With Care". We look after our daughter exactly the same amount of time - yet I "Non-Resident"!
I am unable to challenge this through the courts - the CSA is Primary Legislation and where they have jurisdiction, the courts cannot intercede. This I have found to my cost.
CB is a portal, a passport, a gateway to many other benefits and privileges: Family Tax Credits, Child's Trust Funds, "school catchment area" etc. Even with Parental Responsibility I have had a strugggle to demonstrate that I am my daughter's father to so many institutes - all, of course, except the CSA!
So, should CB be means tested? Should there exist to challenge equal rights to a family life through the courts.

Current Family Law puts the rights of fathers back where women's rights were in the 1970s.
Fathers have an uphill struggle in pretty much every aspect of Family Law.
Time for change? I hope so. I have tried to do this the right way and challenge the law, but funds to fight the very principles which are injust, unequal and archaic are coming to an end.
The impact of a change will positively affect hundreds of thousands of (predominantly) fathers who feel (because they are!) that they are disadvantaged by current legislation.
I suspect from previous cases questioning similar issues - the reason for change is one of money (for the Govt.). Ironically, that's what this all boils down to - money. Well, money and power. I don't wish to be empowered, I just expect fairness from judicial and legislative bodies. Is that too much to ask?

Thanks.