Child Maintenance Service

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Westminster Hall

16:02

[Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the effectiveness of the Child Maintenance Service.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I declare an interest, as I am currently involved in a tribunal with the Department for Work and Pensions concerning my own child maintenance service case, which I will not refer to today.

I am bringing this motion before the House to highlight the urgent need for reform to the child maintenance service, particularly how it deals with post-separation abuse. What should be a system designed to support children is, in reality, too often used by perpetrators as a means of continuing both psychological and economic control and abuse.

For many victim-survivors of domestic abuse, leaving a relationship is the hardest step they will ever take, particularly when children are involved. It is a moment of courage, relief and when they hope the worst is finally behind them. What too many discover is that the abuse does not end when they leave; it simply changes form. Again and again, I hear from survivors who tell me the same thing: the child maintenance service has just become another arena in which the abuse can continue.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

My constituent Megan contacted me to say that she has escaped from her abusive former partner, who is supposed to be contributing less than £1 a day towards their child’s needs, but is not even managing that, although he does have influence over key decisions such as schooling and where they live. The domestic abuse is therefore still persisting, even though she has left her former partner. The child maintenance service is being weaponised against victims. Does my hon. Friend agree that we have a clear responsibility to help people such as my constituent Megan and her child?

[Kirith Entwistle]

That is exactly why this debate matters. I will come on to some of the points my hon. Friend raised.

When a public service not only allows, but actively facilitates, the continuation of abuse and fails to recognise the realities of coercive control, it is not just flawed; it is unjust. The national evidence is deeply concerning. Research by Gingerbread, a charity supporting single-parent families, found that 77% of primary carers using the CMS reported experiencing domestic abuse from the other parent.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing the debate. This is a massive issue in my constituency, as it is in hers. In Northern Ireland, a large proportion of parents relying on the CMS face difficulties in receiving timely maintenance, which directly impacts child poverty and family stability. Does she agree that there may be a lack of staff, and that to ensure that the CMS system operates effectively for families not just in her constituency, but in Northern Ireland, more needs to be done to reduce the backlogs and secure the financial support that their children are entitled to?

[Kirith Entwistle]

Absolutely.

Even more troubling is that 45% of the parents in that research said that the CMS’s involvement had actually led to an increase in abusive behaviour. Those figures should stop us in our tracks.

For survivors, the very experience of using the CMS can be deeply distressing. From the cold tone of emails and letters to the aggressive and harsh text messages, right through to the opaque way payments are calculated, the process can be deeply triggering for those who have experienced abuse. At the very beginning, survivors are asked whether they have experienced abuse and what form that abuse took. For a moment, there is hope that the system might understand the gravity of that disclosure, but what follows is often little more than signposting to a list of organisations before the process simply continues as though the question had never been asked.

Ultimately, the disclosure changes nothing. There is no meaningful change in how the case is handled, no structural safeguards and no recognition that the dynamics of abuse may shape the entire case. Crucially, it does nothing to change the tone of communications with the CMS. For someone who has taken enormous personal risk to leave an abusive partner, that can feel like jumping out of a plane only to find that there is no parachute, no safe landing and no one to catch them when they fall.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

My team has been absolutely inundated with child maintenance service casework. I agree with the hon. Member’s point about the faceless nature of the service and how unhelpful—in fact, damaging—that is to people who have been subject to domestic abuse.

Some constituents’ cases show a clear and worrying pattern of one parent’s evidence being approved when there is clear evidence on the other side that it is a lie, to use rather frank terms. There are some accounts from constituents who have been driven to suicidal ideation because of the shambles of the system, so I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this matter today.

[Kirith Entwistle]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. I will come on to that issue shortly.

Surely we must ask whether this is really the standard we are willing to accept. Another fundamental weakness lies in how the CMS deals with shared care, in that it absolutely fails to do so. In theory, maintenance calculations are meant to reflect the number of nights a child spends with each parent; in reality, the system largely relies on what parents report themselves. Rather than establishing the reality of shared care, the number of nights is effectively averaged out based on those reports, with no evidence required. When parents try to push back and provide evidence, that is often disregarded unless a court order is in place.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. As a child of divorced parents way before the CMS came into existence, I know that the whole issue of how much the paying parent should pay and getting them to pay on time is extremely stressful—for the children as well.

My hon. Friend raised good points about child maintenance being routinely weaponised. Collect and pay may help lots of families by making it harder for abusers to withhold payment, but I know from my caseload that many parents say that income is being hidden and that the CMS is allowing that income to be hidden—if a parent is self-employed or becomes a “director”, for example. Does she agree that the CMS must be equipped to find that hidden income?

[Kirith Entwistle]

My hon. Friend raises a particularly important point. I will come on to the collect and pay service and how that is also broken.

The result of how the CMS deals with shared care is a system that accepts unverified claims, but refuses genuine evidence. It is confusing, adversarial and often deeply unfair. The structure of the CMS also creates the wrong incentives. When maintenance calculations change depending on the number of nights a child spends with each parent, disputes over care arrangements quickly become disputes over money. Fortalice, a leading domestic abuse charity in my town of Bolton, is all too aware of that problem. It tells me of cases where a parent seeks increased overnight contact—not because that is in the child’s best interests, but to reduce their CMS payments or claim additional financial support. Children should never become bargaining chips in financial disputes.

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. We are all here because we have been inundated with issues and complaints about the CMS. One of the things I hear about over and over again is the lack of communication. Does the hon. Member agree that if the CMS got the communication right, some of these disputes might not escalate to the point where they become very troublesome indeed?

[Kirith Entwistle]

As I mentioned earlier, there is a big issue with how the CMS communicates with both parents.

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

We have all received casework on this subject. I often find that what I can only term incompetence by the CMS enables non-resident parents to shirk financial responsibility—at the expense of the child, at the end of the day. Does my hon. Friend agree that we in Government must look into these issues and take decisive action to ensure that the CMS is fit for purpose, gets a grip and actually does the job we are asking it to do?

[Kirith Entwistle]

I completely agree. These issues are not theoretical; I see them repeatedly in cases raised by my own constituents in Bolton. One constituent, who I will call Emily, left an abusive relationship and is still dealing with the consequences through the CMS. She describes intimidation and harassment from the father of her children, alongside unreliable maintenance payments. Money arrives late, arrives short or does not arrive at all. Her case remains on direct pay, meaning that the system still relies on co-operation between parents, even when there is a history of abuse. For many survivors, that is not a neutral arrangement: it can mean ongoing contact with the person they are trying to escape and persistent fear about what will happen if they challenge missing payments.

Emily has repeatedly asked for her case to be moved to collect and pay, so that payments can be handled through the CMS without that direct interaction, yet delays, missed call-backs and poor communication have left her stuck in a process that exposes her to distress and financial uncertainty. Other frontline charities in Bolton, such as Endeavour, tell me that they see that pattern all too regularly. Survivors describe payments being withheld, not because the other parent cannot afford to pay but because that unpredictability becomes a form of control. Many report that payments stop just before birthdays, Christmas or school holidays, only to restart later. That pattern is not random; it is about maintaining power. Survivors tell us that they feel trapped by the CMS, and we absolutely must listen.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

One of my constituents has raised this issue with me; she is owed nearly £6,000. She says:

“What makes me most mad is if he paid, I wouldn’t need UC to top up my wages. The government is paying twice, once for chasing him and once for covering him.”

Is the system not completely broken?

[Kirith Entwistle]

That is such a powerful point, and I am really sorry on behalf of my hon. Friend’s constituent. Sadly, that is not an isolated case.

Some say that they are asked to pay far more than they can afford, while others say that the support they receive does not come close to covering the cost of raising their children. When they try to seek clarification, they hit another problem with the CMS: inconsistency. Different advisers give different answers, and staff are working from guidance rather than clear, consistent rules. As a result, parents can end up receiving conflicting advice from the very organisation that is meant to support them and their children through a difficult time.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for being so brave in introducing this debate; many of us have dealt with this issue on a daily basis.

There is an issue of fairness in the allocation of the rules. I had one father who tried to kill himself because he felt that there was no allocation of fairness in what he was trying to do for his family. The rules do not seem to be clear cut, and there does not seem to be a way through for families who want to work together. The system seems to disproportionately favour the spouse who is willing to lie and say things about the other, and that has to change. It is just not sustainable.

[Kirith Entwistle]

Absolutely. The system is fundamentally broken. Children must be at the heart of any decision made about them. It is important to recognise that many parents, particularly single mothers, who have experienced abuse do not use the CMS at all. They avoid it because engaging with the system may mean renewed contact with the very person they are trying to escape. They do not see the CMS as protection, but merely as another channel through which a perpetrator can exert control.

[Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case for the reform of the CMS. My constituent has been hounded by her ex-partner, with eight consecutive investigations by the CMS triggered by his complaints about her. It has ultimately caused her to give up work. Does my hon. Friend agree that vexatious complaints such as those must be identified and prevented from taking up CMS resources and allowing the continuation of financial abuse?

[Kirith Entwistle]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend raises yet another issue with the CMS and highlights just how badly the system is set up.

Mothers struggle on alone, absorbing financial pressure themselves rather than risking opening the door to further abuse. That should deeply concern this House. We must remember what is at stake. Child maintenance exists for one reason: to support the quality of life and wellbeing of children. Yet the experiences that we have all described suggest that children are being drawn into adult conflict, rather than being protected and shielded from it.

In the worst cases, the CMS allows children to be weaponised by perpetrators; I can make no stronger point than that. How can we possibly continue with a service that allows that to happen—a service that effectively tells perpetrators that more overnight contact may mean lower maintenance payments; a service where the amount paid can be disputed, delayed or manipulated because the rules are unclear; a service where weak enforcement allows some parents to evade their responsibilities altogether; and a service that some survivors avoid entirely because it does not feel safe?

Campaigning organisations, such as Gingerbread, have already set out practical proposals for change, and I would be grateful if the Minister could address three areas where the system must work better for survivors and their children. First, we need a genuinely child-centred approach to maintenance so that decisions about contact and payments are driven by children’s wellbeing, rather than financial incentives. Secondly, disclosures of domestic abuse must trigger meaningful safeguards, not mere signposting or lip service. There must also be clearer evidential standards for shared care, particularly where no court order is in place. Finally, survivors should have better access to collect and pay alongside a named caseworker so they are not forced into ongoing contact with perpetrators or required to repeat traumatic experiences.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. Has she noticed that child maintenance payments are being stopped when an ex-partner applies for child benefit? That is another source of income that is being manipulated by a partner to keep the money from the parent who is looking after the children.

[Kirith Entwistle]

Absolutely; it is just another vehicle being used by perpetrators to continue that post-separation abuse.

At its heart, this debate is about the lives of children growing up in separated families across the country. The child maintenance service was created with the intention of supporting those children, but when the system allows post-separation abuse to continue, when it leaves survivors feeling unheard and unsafe, and when children are drawn into that harm, it is clear that reform is urgently needed. The question we must ask ourselves is simple: can we honestly continue with a system that allows children to be weaponised by perpetrators of abuse? I do not believe that we can.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

I will call Vikki Slade, but I want to hear from the Minister because this is an important debate. I am going to restrict the hon. Lady to two minutes.

16:19

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) on securing the debate, and I thank her and the Minister for allowing me time to speak. I will cut to the chase to make sure that the cases I want to reference are heard. I have raised this issue so many times in this House, and it is disappointing that we have only 30 minutes when so many Members wish to speak.

Mark was abused by a partner, but was not believed until she attacked another man. He paid for his child, but was banned from seeing them for six years. It is only now that the court has redressed that injustice. Sarah was forced to undergo the indignity of DNA testing, despite years of her ex-partner seeking custody of their children. He now pays one penny a month in arrears. Nicola’s ex has taken to working abroad to avoid payments. His arrears are going to take 471 years to clear.

After I spoke about this issue in the Chamber last month, 1.2 million people viewed my video and 5,000 people contacted me—mums and dads from across the country with harrowing stories. While most were women who recognised my constituent’s experience, hundreds of men also wrote to me about being denied access, losing money directly from their accounts and being pushed to breaking point. Some told me about men who had taken their lives after being overwhelmed by the CMS process.

The House of Lords has concluded that parts of the CMS are no longer fit for purpose, and it is really time to make this change. We must make sure that people are not hiding income. It is not fair that resident parents are still having to pay their bills to their landlords and Tesco, but non-resident parents can deduct everything else before their child maintenance. That simply does not work.

I know that colleagues across Parliament, from every party and every region, have called for this debate, but debate is not enough. We need to have a full consultation, to learn lessons from other countries that manage child support better, and, ultimately, to have a White Paper so we can create a positive legacy for separated families. I am holding a roundtable on Friday, not just with my own constituents but with all of these people who have asked me for help. We must change this system.

16:21

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I am struck, as was the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), by the level of interest in this debate and, indeed, by the specifics of some of the cases that have been raised. I concur with her that this is an incredibly important debate, and one that perhaps could have used more time. I am sure that Members will look where they can at various mechanisms to ensure that we return to this in future.

I want to begin by recognising the vital role that the Child Maintenance Service plays in supporting families across the country, notwithstanding that we all have examples in our casework of challenging cases—cases where the service could do better. The CMS now supports more than 1.1 million children, a figure that rose nearly 5% in the 12 months to September 2025, through both family-based arrangements and arrangements made via the CMS. An estimated £2.9 billion is transferred each year to children in separated families, keeping around 120,000 children out of relative low income after housing costs.

I know that almost all parents want the best for their children, and that, in spite of the difficulties and conflicts inherent in family break-up, a majority of paying parents consistently contribute towards their children’s upbringing, helping to ensure that they receive the support they need. Compliance levels within the collect and pay service remain strong; in the most recent reporting quarter, 74% of paying parents under collect and pay paid maintenance.

To set the scene, it is worth explaining how the CMS operates. The CMS is statutorily obliged to consider all valid maintenance applications in accordance with relevant legislation. To ensure consistency and fairness across the system, the CMS applies a set of broad rules intended to secure the best overall outcomes for all parents. Clear, simple rules are essential; they make the system more efficient, improve customer service and are vital when dealing with hundreds of thousands of cases.

That is in stark contrast to previous schemes operated by the CMS’s predecessor, the Child Support Agency, which were notoriously complex and inflexible. Those schemes relied heavily on parents providing detailed financial information that was often difficult to obtain or keep up to date. The result was significant delays and, too often, families being let down.

That said, the Government recognise that there is more that the CMS can do to deliver a fair and trustworthy service that is more accessible to parents, and particularly to those who are vulnerable. That is why the CMS is continuing to make significant and meaningful improvements to the service wherever possible, to ensure that parents feel informed, supported and confident in the actions being taken on their case.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for setting the scene. Would he reflect back to the House that, notwithstanding what he has said, there is a clear pattern of a lack of reliable communication, a failure to enforce payments and what often seems like an inability to keep in line with legislation? Does he recognise that what we are all experiencing on behalf of our constituents is an organisation that does not seem to have basic administrative competence?

[Andrew Western]

I will come to the points about communication and enforcement momentarily. I acknowledge that we all have difficult cases, but the CMS does handle billions of pounds a year in payments to families, and it is important to recognise where it works as well as where change is needed. It is failing for some families, as in the cases that have been outlined, and we want to put that right.

I will now turn to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle). I will start with the three asks from Gingerbread. First, on the disclosure of domestic abuse and the handling thereof, the CMS recognises that both receiving and paying parents can be victims of domestic abuse, including coercive and controlling behaviour, and it has put a number of safeguards in place to help them use the service safely. All caseworkers receive extensive domestic abuse training, which has been refreshed to reflect the Home Office’s statutory guidance on controlling or coercive behaviour, so that they are equipped to identify risks and signpost parents to specialist support. The CMS also has a domestic abuse plan and a regularly updated list of resources to support victims.

Where safety concerns arise, though—I accept that they arise in some instances—the CMS can advise on non-traceable payment methods, such as accounts with centralised sort codes to ensure a parent’s location cannot be identified. The Government are also taking wider steps to minimise opportunities for abuse within the maintenance system, perhaps most importantly through plans to remove direct pay, reducing the need for any contact between parents and closing off avenues for economic control or coercion.

The second point concerned evidential standards for shared care, which is a contested area. I absolutely accept that it is a difficult space for our caseworkers to operate in. When a dispute arises regarding overnight stays, the CMS must avoid taking one parent’s word against the other and must consider certain types of evidence, such as a court order or an agreement between the parents, but it may consider other types of evidence as well, including in cases where a court order is not in place. Formal evidence will carry more weight than other evidence in establishing whether there is a pattern of shared care, but the CMS will consider each parent’s statements before making a decision.

Where the parties agree in principle that there is a level of shared care but cannot agree on a number of nights, the CMS can make an assumption of shared care of one night a week, but as I said earlier, shared care disputes are challenging. We understand the frustration and the concerns that they present for parents, and we are keeping the issue under active review and looking at how the process can be improved. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East is due a conversation with my noble Friend Baroness Sherlock. She may want to ask Baroness Sherlock for the specifics on that, given that she is the lead Minister on this issue.

Gingerbread’s third substantive point concerned the welfare of the child, and I want to offer reassurance on that. Clearly, the entire point of the CMS is to ensure the welfare of the child as it pertains to financial stability and to ensure the ability of parents to look after their children, but if specific safeguarding concerns arise, there are procedures in place to report them to the relevant authority, which is usually the local authority where the child lives.

There were a couple of other points that I want to touch on, including the question of enforcement. Clearly, there are always improvements to be made. There was a specific question about hidden income. There is a financial investigation unit in place. If there are specific cases that colleagues would like me to refer to that unit, I am happy to do so. We do have, for want of a better description, persistent offenders who are difficult to pin down. We will all have such examples in our caseload, and we are looking at what more we can do to track people down in those cases.

I am conscious of time. This has been an incredibly important debate. The door of my noble Friend Baroness Sherlock is always open to colleagues who want to talk about CMS reform. We are undertaking a calculation review. We are looking to abolish direct pay as soon as parliamentary time allows. That is a very important step to tackle coercive control and abuse in the system. We can always do more. I am happy to speak to colleagues at any point, but I also strongly encourage them, if necessary, to book in with my noble Friend.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).