Consultation outcome

Government response: Child Maintenance: Improving the collection and transfer of payments

Updated 23 June 2025

© Crown copyright 2025

This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.

Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/child-maintenance-improving-the-collection-and-transfer-of-payments/outcome/government-response-child-maintenance-improving-the-collection-and-transfer-of-payments

Ministerial foreword 

The Child Maintenance Service is one of those rare things: a public service that most people hope they’ll never need.  But when it is needed, it does a crucial job in helping to ensure children get the financial support they need. Any family can break up, but children should not fall into poverty or go without because of a breakdown in relationships between parents. When this does happen, they need the Child Maintenance Service, and the current system is not working.

The Child Maintenance Service was last reformed in the early 2010s to encourage parents to make their own arrangements. If that didn’t work, their next option was to use Direct Pay, a service where the Child Maintenance Service calculates the maintenance due, and parents pay one another directly. Only if that failed were parents allowed to use the full-fat Collect and Pay service where the Child Maintenance Service collects and transfers the money due.

The reforms we are announcing today will remove Direct Pay altogether. This will increase the number of effective maintenance arrangements between parents, getting money flowing, lifting thousands of children out of poverty, and tackling non-compliance in our systems in a way we can’t under the current systems.

Research tells us that only 60% of parents with primary care for children in Direct Pay reported getting all of the child maintenance they are owed, and only 40% of them reported receiving it always on time. This is not acceptable, especially since we know that parents who use the Child Maintenance Service tend to be on lower incomes than those who make private arrangements, so the money changing hands is even more pivotal. This change will benefit children, and that is why it is the right thing to do.

Poverty scars the lives and life chances of too many of our children, limiting their future prospects and holding back this country’s economic potential. This government is determined to tackle this scandal. Our Child Poverty Strategy will focus on fixing the underlying causes of child poverty as part of the government’s Plan for Change. Reforming the Child Maintenance Service is part of the urgent action we are taking to support that strategy. Children in separated families are poorer than those in non-separated families and the Child Maintenance Service plays a vital role in ensuring these children get the financial support they need, working with separated families to get money flowing to children. Child maintenance payments keep approximately 120,000 children out of poverty each year, but we need to, and we plan to, do better.  

I am grateful to the previous government for launching the Child Maintenance: Improving the collection and transfer of payments consultation. We extended the consultation period in order to gather as much feedback as possible and I would like to thank all the individuals and stakeholder organisations who took the time to respond, providing important insights on our proposals.  The responses span a range of views, with the perspectives of those parents who pay child maintenance often at variance with those who receive it. But although perspectives vary, we can all agree on one thing: that children should get the support to which they are entitled, and that we need a modern, efficient, caring Child Maintenance Service to help make this a reality.   

This government’s ambitions for the Child Maintenance Service are threefold. We want to deliver a fair and trustworthy service that is more accessible to parents, particularly those who are vulnerable. We want to tackle non-compliance head on by moving to a single streamlined service where we can quickly identify, and tackle missed payments. Finally, and most importantly, we want to lift more children out of poverty. 

To do this we must help separated families get child maintenance arranged, whether within the Child Maintenance Service, or in private, family-based arrangements. We are determined to deliver on these ambitions, and this response sets out the changes and support we are putting in place to ensure they are met.  

To further build on our ambitious plans to improve the Child Maintenance Service, I would also like to announce our intention to consult on the Child Maintenance calculation. It’s been over 20 years since this calculation was fully reviewed, so we want to seek the views of parents and the wider public as we reshape it to ensure the calculation is both fair and fit for the future. We intend to publish this consultation towards the end of the year. 

As the minister responsible for the Child Maintenance Service, I am pleased to be publishing the Government’s response to this important consultation and look forward to continuing our work towards implementing reform.

Baroness Sherlock OBE

Minister of State for Work and Pensions (in the Lords)

Glossary of terms

Term Explanation
Child Maintenance Service (CMS) Administrative service within the Department for Work and Pensions responsible for the child maintenance scheme launched in 2012.
Paying Parent The parent who does not have main day-to-day care of the qualifying child and is responsible for the payment of child maintenance. Otherwise known as the non-resident parent.
Receiving Parent The parent who has main day-to-day care of the qualifying children and should receive child maintenance. Otherwise known as the parent with care.
Family-based arrangement A private child maintenance arrangement which has no state involvement.
Service types The options by which the CMS case is administered – either Collect and Pay or Direct Pay.
Direct Pay Service type whereby parents are supplied with a calculation and a payment schedule, but the paying parent pays the receiving parent directly and there is generally no involvement from the CMS, other than in cases of non-compliance. Direct Pay is free to use for both parents.
Collect and Pay Service type whereby parents are supplied with a calculation and payment schedule, and the CMS collects and transfers payments from the paying parent to the receiving parent. Fees apply to both parents on Collect and Pay.
Child maintenance liability The calculated amount of child maintenance the paying parent has to pay to the receiving parent, according to the formula and rules set out in legislation.
Scheduled amount The total amount the paying parent has to pay, which includes the child maintenance liability, plus fees, plus an amount towards arrears if appropriate.
Deduction from benefits A flat rate of child maintenance plus fees taken automatically from certain benefits received by the paying parent.

Executive summary  

1. On 8 May 2024 the previous government published a consultation document: Child Maintenance: Improving the collection and transfer of payments. Following the 2024 General Election, this government extended the consultation until 30 September 2024 to give as many people as possible the chance to respond.

2. The consultation received over 2,700 public responses, and engagement from 28 stakeholder organisations across the UK.

3. The consultation set out the main proposal to remove the Direct Pay service type and manage all CMS cases in one streamlined service.

4. The consultation also asked for insight in other areas, including:

  • Family-based arrangements – initiatives and support offered within and outside of the CMS to help parents make family-based arrangements, and what improvements could be made to support families to make and maintain effective family-based arrangements
  • Fees – the consultation asked for insight on current fees and proposed a new collection fee structure for parents using the service
  • Domestic abuse – asking respondents for their views on current support for victims and survivors of domestic abuse using the CMS, and what more we can do to improve the service for these customers

5. In total, the consultation invited responses to 33 questions across these subject areas.

6. We commissioned Ipsos to undertake research with current CMS customers in the Direct Pay service to help us quantify the impacts of reforms contained in the consultation as well as provide in-depth quantitative and qualitative insight to help design the detailed reforms[footnote 1]. The research was based on a representative sample of paying and receiving parents and, where relevant, the results have also been included in this response. The full research findings have been published on the DWP research pages at the same time as this consultation response.

7. This publication summarises the main points made by respondents and provides the Government’s full response to them. It also sets out how we will take these proposals forward in order to get more money to children and support the Government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity.

8. Consultation responses from receiving parents and paying parents were very different, so we analysed them separately. Receiving parent and paying parent respondents included people who identified themselves as friends or family of these respective groups[footnote 2].

9. There were mixed responses to our main proposal of removing Direct Pay and operating the CMS in a single service. Respondents didn’t generally think that Direct Pay currently works well, but receiving parents were keener on the proposal of a single service than paying parents.

10. Respondents were generally opposed to proposals for a reduced fee of 2% for receiving parents and compliant parents though there was some acceptance that a small fee is necessary and fair. Paying and receiving parents were split on the 20% non-compliance fee, with receiving parents finding it acceptable and paying parents opposing it.

11. We also received useful feedback on improvements that could be made to the support provided for family-based arrangements and improving domestic abuse procedures.

12. After a thorough consideration of every response, we have decided to remove Direct Pay. This change will improve the service for customers and remove many of the issues that currently exist on Direct Pay and that customers face moving between service types, which are explained in the ‘service types’ chapter.

13. This will mean that all statutory cases are administered through a single service type where the CMS can monitor and manage every payment, enabling us more quickly to identify and act on non-compliance.

14. As part of this, we have also decided to reform the collection fee structure. At a decreased fee rate for those already on Collect and Pay, fees will be set at: 2% for receiving parents, deducted from maintenance received; 2% for compliant paying parents, added to their child maintenance liability; and 20% for non-compliant paying parents, in addition to their child maintenance liability. These fees will contribute to the day to day running costs of the service, which we are continually seeking to improve.

15. These reforms will require legislative change and will face scrutiny through Parliamentary processes, with introduction expected in 27/28, Parliamentary time permitting.

16. In addition, the Government is announcing our intention to publish a consultation on the Child Maintenance Calculation in late 2025 – consulting on another core aspect of the service, that has not been reviewed in far too long.

Introduction

17. This Government is ambitious for our country and its people, building public services and an economy that works for them as part of our Plan for Change.

18. We have committed to giving children the best start in life and having a record 75% of five-year-olds in England ready to learn when they start school.

19. Too many children struggle to have their basic needs met. Since 2010 to 2011 there has been an increase of 900,000 children growing up in poverty, to 4.5 million[footnote 3]. This harms their lives now, limits their future prospects and holds back this country’s economic potential – it is a stain on our country.

20. Child Maintenance has an important role to play in ensuring support gets to the children of separated families and is a crucial part of our work to reduce child poverty and ensure they have the best start in life. Child maintenance payments keep approximately 120,000 children out of poverty each year[footnote 4].

21. The consultation into the Child Maintenance Service, started under the previous government, and extended by this Government, gives us a clear understanding of what we need to fix.

22. Among separated families, there are three typical arrangement methods. Parents can make an arrangement outside of the statutory scheme where they make their own calculation, organise what shared care looks like for them, and make their own payment timetables. This is commonly referred to as a private arrangement or a family-based arrangement (FBA). Within the statutory scheme, parents are either in Direct Pay where the paying parent makes payments directly to the receiving parent or Collect and Pay where the Child Maintenance Service collects and passes on the payments.

Family Based Arrangements

23. Family-based arrangements have their advantages, particularly in terms of flexibility and the ability to alter the arrangement in response to individual circumstances

24. However, the consultation made it clear to us that this is not enough. FBAs are not appropriate for everyone, and for those where they are, parents may need support to weather periods of financial or emotional strain that place a maintenance agreement under stress. Some 66% of receiving parent respondents and 80% of paying parent respondents said they did not feel that current CMS initiatives help parents to make family-based arrangements. There is more that we should be doing to support parents who feel this is the most suitable option for them.

Direct Pay

25. Direct Pay was introduced in 2012 as part of the launch of the current system with elements such as having no collection fees, as an incentive for compliance on paying the full amount owed on time.

26. Direct Pay arrangements are not working as they were intended to and there is little evidence of their encouraging parents to work together, reducing the reliance on the CMS, and acting as a stepping stone towards a family-based arrangement.

27. Direct Pay research showed:

  • only 60% of receiving parents reported they received all the maintenance due to them; and only 40% of receiving parents reported they always received their maintenance payments on time

  • more than a third (36%) of receiving parents who had experienced a missed or late payment had not reported it to the CMS, with key reasons for this being focused on their relationship with the paying parent and/or having low confidence in the CMS

  • 71% of receiving parents and 51% of paying parents in Direct Pay reported having experienced domestic abuse from the other parent[footnote 5].

Collect and Pay

28. The current Collect and Pay system provides a mechanism for enforcing payments once parents are in it; but overwhelmingly the current legal framework requires them to start their case in ‘Direct Pay’. Parents can find moving service type difficult and evidence from 2021 suggests the resulting delays mean cases move onto Collect and Pay with significant arrears, which complicates the handling of the case and results in significant customer dissatisfaction[footnote 6]. Moreover, charges for the service are high – 4% for receiving parents and 20% for the paying parent.

29. In the future, if payments are not being made in full and on the scheduled dates, the case would already be with the Collect and Pay service, where there is greater involvement from the CMS. When a paying parent fails to pay, action can be taken by the CMS immediately. Parents will have to pay a small fee for this service, but it will be substantially lower than in the current Collect and Pay Service.

Service Modernisation

30. The CMS has changed its focus to look at how it can deliver services more effectively and efficiently. The Modernisation programme began by altering the service offering to make better use of digital channels and self-service options for customers.

31. This is a multi-year programme of innovation which aims to improve our service to customers year on year. We want the CMS to be a more modern, efficient, caring service which keeps supporting children at its heart and leads to more effective child maintenance arrangements.

32. The Modernisation programme has already expanded digital contact options for customers whilst ensuring vulnerable and non-digital customers still receive assistance through their preferred channels.

What next?

33. Other improvements are coming, including removing Direct Pay and ensuring there is greater support for parents whose direct pay arrangements are not working for them and guidance and support for those who could benefit from being on a fee-free family-based arrangement. And our support to help more parents to improve their lives through work, by increasing their hours and earnings to improve living standards as part of our growth mission, is an important part of our plan to increase Child Maintenance Payments to children to give them the best start in life.

34. However, more needs to be done. Fundamental reform of an overly complex system is needed: to address parents’ distrust of the CMS; improve support around payment arrangements; and to ensure payments are fair and affordable. That’s why we will be consulting on further reform, including on how we calculate Child Maintenance, so we build a fair and trustworthy service that delivers for parents and ensures children have the best start in life.

Responses

Chapter 1: Family-based Arrangements

35. In this chapter, we sought views on how we can best support separated parents into making and sustaining a family-based arrangement outside of the CMS. We set out the support that already exists for families to make these types of arrangements - both that provided by the CMS, and initiatives in other government departments. We also asked what more support parents would like to see to make family-based arrangements.

36. Family-based arrangements have their own advantages, particularly in terms of flexibility and the ability to alter the arrangement in response to individual circumstances. Family-based arrangements can be better for children’s health, emotional wellbeing and academic achievement when the separated parents have a good quality relationship and can manage conflict well[footnote 7]. The CMS would like to support parents to make these arrangements where it is appropriate and safe to do so.

37. Research showed that only 16% of receiving parents compared to 43% of paying parents felt confident about being able to have a successful family-based arrangement with the other parent in their Direct Pay arrangement[footnote 8]. This research also suggested key things that could encourage both receiving and paying parents to use a family-based arrangement: knowing they could easily return to the CMS if it did not work out, an online calculator that could easily calculate the maintenance liability and support or interventions to reduce conflict.

We asked:

  • Question 1: Do you think the current CMS initiatives (Get Help Arranging Child Maintenance and the current online calculator), help parents to make effective family-based arrangements?

  • Question 2: Please could you explain your answer?

  • Question 3: How could Get Help Arranging Child Maintenance be improved?

You said:

38. 66% of receiving parent respondents and 80% of paying parent respondents said they did not feel that current CMS initiatives help parents to make family-based arrangements.

39. Receiving parents highlighted perceptions that the initiatives are ineffective or that the CMS online calculator does not factor in hidden income. Some receiving parents appreciated that the online calculator helped get around difficulty talking about money by telling them the amount of maintenance they should be receiving. Paying parents felt that current CMS initiatives were biased towards and exploited by receiving parents in order to obtain more money.

40. Respondents wanted the Get Help Arranging Child Maintenance service to be streamlined, with easier and quicker processing and greater availability of trained staff outside of this service.

41. Stakeholder organisations generally felt that current CMS initiatives were unhelpful, highlighting a requirement for more detailed information regarding domestic abuse; the need for more tailored guidance and support mechanisms and that the online-heavy process poses a challenge for parents with poor digital literacy, no access to internet, or facing a language barrier.

42. Research with Direct Pay customers showed that the Child Maintenance online calculator is the most used tool amongst both parent types, but only around a quarter of receiving and paying parents rated it as very useful with just over another quarter finding it fairly useful[footnote 9] Receiving parents in particular rated other tools such as Get Help Arranging Child Maintenance more highly than the calculator. Get Help Arranging Child Maintenance helped parents see the benefits of having a CMS Direct Pay Arrangement and helped the parents focus on the needs of their children. The research showed paying parents are most likely to want additional support.  Over a quarter would have liked to have used the Get Help Arranging Child Maintenance tool. Reasons for not using Get Help or the online calculator were mostly due to low awareness.

What we’re doing:

43. The CMS provides tools and services, such as Get Help Arranging Child Maintenance and the online calculator, with the aim of providing information to enable parents to make informed decisions about their child maintenance. We are continuing to learn from what works and iterate Get Help Arranging Child Maintenance in light of feedback.

44. The CMS Modernisation programme has transformed the ways in which customers interact with the CMS, providing customers with the choice to make contact through digital routes, and a telephony service focussed on assisting those with complex queries and supporting vulnerable customers. To support customers using online services there is a WebChat function available, and since September 2024, when customers call, caseworkers provide a Digital Assistance Telephony Service.

45. The department is continuously reviewing the signposting within our services to identify opportunities to provide more information that helps parents facilitate arrangements. Some recent examples of this are:

  • a test we are doing with the Reducing Parental Conflict programme on signposting to a digital intervention
  • last year, we introduced Get Help Arranging Child Maintenance to users in Northern Ireland and built webpages with customised signposting to NI specific organisations

46. Our plans for the calculator and signposting to help with family-based arrangements are addressed in our response to questions 4 to 10.

We asked:

  • Question 4: Government is considering introducing a service which provides a full maintenance calculation using verified income data held by government (for example HMRC data). Would you find this useful? (Yes/No/Don’t know)

  • Question 5: Please could you explain your answer?

  • Question 6: What else could the CMS do to improve the online calculator?

You said:

47. The proposal of an enhanced calculator using verified income data was generally well received by receiving parent respondents, with 66% saying this would be useful, compared to 31% of paying parent respondents. Receiving parents appreciated the improved accuracy it would provide. There were concerns raised, however, over not picking up hidden income and feelings of intrusiveness. Research suggests that 26% of receiving parents and 40% of paying parents could be encouraged to try a family-based arrangement if they had access to an online calculator to calculate liability, without knowing the paying parents’ income[footnote 10].

48. Stakeholder organisations were in favour of an enhanced calculator, citing that it would help to provide a more accurate calculation, helping parents to budget their money and make informed decisions. Some stakeholder organisations did raise concerns around hidden income and variation through pensions, cash in hand payments and salary sacrifices, etc.

49. When asked how the online calculator could be improved, all individual respondents focused on greater accuracy of the maintenance amount or ensuring that calculated amounts match up with final CMS calculations.

What we’re doing:

50. As receiving parent respondents were supportive of this proposal, we are now exploring exactly how best to make it work in practice, while addressing the concerns about intrusion raised, particularly by paying parents.

51. We plan for this to be part of the reformed service and will ensure that customers are aware it is available and how to use it.

We asked:

  • Question 7: What are your views on the accessibility of support available to separated parents to help them maintain family-based-arrangements outside of the CMS? For example: mediation, co-parenting and relationship programmes

You said:

52. Receiving parent respondents felt that the support was unhelpful, inadequate, or were unaware that support was available. They also highlighted difficulties accessing support of the kind specified in the question because of existing domestic abuse or poor relationships with the paying parent. Paying parent respondents also felt this support was unhelpful and inadequate, was biased towards receiving parents, and was difficult to take advantage of due to poor relationships with the receiving parent.

53. Research indicated that around 30% of receiving and paying parents had used a local mediator, arbitration or relationship support, but less than 15% of those who had used such support found it very useful. In the same research 17% of receiving parents and 30% of paying parents said that support or intervention to reduce conflict could encourage use of a family-based arrangement.

54. Stakeholder organisations highlighted the need to raise awareness of available services and address issues around financial barriers and accessibility. Some accessibility issues raised were that services often aren’t particularly local and are limited to parents going though or having gone through family court processes.

What we’re doing:

55. We understand that making and maintaining Family Based Arrangements can be challenging and will be working with stakeholder organisations to understand what the gaps are to accessing support and how we can fill them. We will also explore how we can reach a wider audience to raise awareness of the benefits of having a child maintenance arrangement. There are related initiatives both within and outside of the department, which we have provided information on below.

Reducing Parental Conflict programme

56. We recognise that where parental separation happens, it can be both a distressing and formative experience, particularly for younger children. Where it is safe and appropriate to do so, separated parents who are able to create a co-operative relationship and adapt their emotions to the new situation, can achieve a less conflicted environment and support better outcomes for their children.

57. The Department for Work and Pension’s Reducing Parental Conflict programme works closely with local authorities in England to provide support for separated and separating parents, as well as those still together.

58. The Department for Work and Pensions has confirmed £8.6 million in funding for the Reducing Parental Conflict programme in 2025 to 2026. This will continue assisting parents to access relationship support in their local area. The programme is also looking at further opportunities to integrate relationship support into services which families experiencing separation may interact with, such as the Child Maintenance Service and Family Courts. Where services prove beneficial, we will always look to extend the support to our customers throughout Great Britain through equivalent provision.

Ministry of Justice Mediation Voucher Scheme

59. An example of an initiative to support separated parents outside of the CMS is the Ministry of Justice’s Mediation Voucher scheme. This is part of the Government’s commitment to help more parents resolve their disputes earlier and, where appropriate, without court intervention. It gives families the opportunity to resolve their own child arrangement disputes (i.e. a disagreement concerning children following a relationship breakdown, for example, who a child should live with), where this is safe and appropriate, by providing up to £500 towards the costs of mediation sessions. The voucher is not means tested and is available to any family with a child arrangement dispute, or a financial dispute involving child arrangements, in England and Wales. This voucher can therefore reduce the cost of dispute resolution and help families avoid lengthy court proceedings.

60. Since the voucher scheme began in 2021, it has helped families agree their own child arrangements with a professional mediator. The scheme has recently been extended until March 2026, which will enable more families to make their own child arrangements.

We asked:

  • Question 8: What more could be done to help parents make effective family-based arrangements, where appropriate? 

  • Question 9: Are you in favour of CMS signposting and where possible embedding support to parents to resolve conflict, where appropriate?

  • Question 10: Please could you provide reasons for your answer?

You said:

61. Receiving parent respondents were mostly concerned with stronger consequences for non-compliance. Paying parent respondents wanted the opportunity to have their input heard, to remove perceived bias in favour of receiving parents and wanted equal shared care to be encouraged more. Similar patterns of response from receiving parents and paying parents were found in the research with Direct Pay customers: when asked what parents would find appealing additions to Direct Pay arrangements, paying parents rated support to form an FBA most highly, while receiving parents wanted enforcement and collection of payments[footnote 11].

62. 49% of receiving parents and 59% of paying parents responding to the consultation were in favour of the CMS signposting to and embedding support for parents to resolve conflict. Parents felt that having this support would be helpful and may improve their relationship or reduce conflict. Some paying parents highlighted a distrust in the CMS’s ability to be unbiased in respect of receiving and paying parents, or that providing support of this kind would be outside the CMS area of expertise.

63. For support making family-based arrangements, stakeholder organisations suggested more early intervention services and integration with other Government initiatives, and the provision of more guidance and information on family-based arrangements. Stakeholder organisations were also largely in favour of signposting to support, as long as there is caution about not signposting victims and survivors of domestic abuse to relationship support.

What we’re doing:

64. We are – and will continue – working with other government departments to link up with and signpost to services they offer. We are very aware of the importance of identifying victims and survivors of domestic abuse and ensuring they get appropriate support.

65. We will continue to engage with external stakeholder organisations as we consider how we might develop and promote supportive interventions and raise awareness of Child Maintenance arrangements with parents. Some of this work is already underway and we are having conversations with stakeholder organisations to establish the support that already exists.

MoJ Digital Exemplar Project

66. The Ministry of Justice are developing and testing digital solutions to resolve child arrangement disputes outside of court, helping to ensure fewer children are subject to private law court proceedings where family-based or non-court arrangements can be made. Changes to gov.uk content based on user research have been made to improve the accuracy and utility of information about making non-court arrangements.

67. In a well-functioning separated family where abuse is not a factor, both childcare arrangements and child maintenance are managed amicably between the parents. Given the benefits that flow from this, we are exploring, with the Ministry of Justice, ways of co-ordinating advice on the two issues to maximise the advantages flowing to children.

Chapter 2: Service types

68. When Direct Pay was introduced in 2012, it was intended to encourage collaboration between parents and act as a stepping stone to make a family-based arrangement. However, as time has gone on it has become clear that Direct Pay has not achieved these goals and that it has associated problems with domestic abuse. Where the paying parent pays the receiving parent directly, this is sometimes used as a vehicle for financial and coercive control. In research with Direct Pay customers, 71% of receiving parents and 51% of paying parents reported that they had experienced domestic abuse from the other parent[footnote 12].

69. Additionally, there are a number of other issues in having a CMS with two service types. The main one is the difficulty in moving between them. In Direct Pay there should be little involvement from the CMS as the paying parent pays the receiving parent directly. However, in cases of non-compliance (i.e. where the paying parent misses a payment or doesn’t pay the full maintenance amount), the onus is on the receiving parent to report this. The CMS will intervene to reestablish compliance and, where Direct Pay isn’t working (e.g. there are compliance issues) parents can request to have their case moved to Collect and Pay. This requires initiation by a parent and evidence from both parents, and it has become apparent that many customers find making the change a real challenge. Research suggests that more than a third of receiving parents have not contacted the CMS if they received a late payment or no payment; their relationship with the other parent and low confidence in the CMS being the key reasons[footnote 13].

The main effects of this are:

  • it means that customers with ineffective arrangements can get ‘stuck’ in Direct Pay, with no, reduced or erratic payments going to children
  • the actual operation of the ‘change to service type’ process is challenging and expensive for CMS and can lead to delays getting money to children and cause a build-up of arrears for parents

70. Our plans to remove Direct Pay should address these issues and provide a safer, more efficient service for CMS customers, which effectively supports money flowing to children.

71. The key proposal we consulted on was to reform the current service into a single service type whereby the CMS monitors and transfers all payments. We believe this would address the issues outlined above, and provide a safer, more efficient service for CMS customers, which effectively supports money flowing to children.

72. We asked for respondents’ views on this proposal, and as part of this, views on the current system and transitional arrangements from the current service to the proposed new service.

We asked:

  • Question 11: What are your views on how Direct Pay and Collect and Pay currently operate?

You said:

73. Respondents to the consultation were generally in agreement that Direct Pay does not work well. Only around a third of paying parents who responded and just 1 in 6 receiving parent respondents expressed positive views about Direct Pay.

74. Satisfaction with Direct Pay was higher in the research, with 64% of receiving parents and 62% of paying parents reporting they were fairly or very satisfied with their arrangement. However, only 60% of receiving parents reported getting all of the maintenance due, with 40% receiving the payment always on time[footnote 14]. More than half of receiving parents in Direct Pay would find enforcement and collecting payments appealing additions to the service they get from the CMS.

75. In the consultation, receiving parent respondents most commonly said they think it is an inadequate system that does not work well, takes too long to address non-compliance and is inefficient in processing requests and reviewing evidence. Paying parent respondents highlighted similar concerns.

76. One stakeholder was unhappy with a loss of perceived payment flexibility that they believe is available in Direct Pay if it is removed, but on the whole stakeholder organisations also recognised problems with the current service types.

What we’re doing:

77. The predominant view from receiving parents given in responses to the consultation reflected the problems with the current system that we are seeking to address with our reform proposals.

78. As we set out in the consultation, one of the rationales for removing Direct Pay was to address hidden non-compliance and inefficiencies in the service. The majority of receiving parent respondents agreed that the current system takes too long to tackle non-compliance. The majority of both receiving and paying parent respondents were concerned about the time it currently takes to process and review evidence.

79. In response to concerns about the loss of payment flexibility perceived to be currently available within Direct Pay, it should be emphasised that in Direct Pay, paying parents are still required to pay on time and in full in line with their payment schedule. If payments are not being made in this way, the case would be best dealt with under Collect and Pay, where there is greater involvement from the CMS.

We asked:

  • Question 12: Are you in favour of consolidating the CMS into one service that monitors and transfers all maintenance payments?

  • Question 13: Please could you explain your answer?

You said:

80. 65% of responding receiving parents were in favour of consolidating the CMS into a single service (as proposed) compared to 18% of paying parent respondents. Receiving parents highlighted the potential to improve compliance with the CMS managing payments and transfers.

81. Paying parents not in favour did not like the increased control it would give the CMS and expressed low confidence in the CMS. Paying parents also pointed out that it could be unfair to compliant paying parents to treat them as non-compliant (i.e. not allowing them to essentially administer the arrangement themselves as is currently the case in Direct Pay).

82. Research with Direct Pay customers showed that receiving parents were more likely to see the positives of payment monitoring and transferring payments than paying parents[footnote 15]. Monitoring would help receiving parents feel more confident in their arrangement and reduce the potential for abuse whereas paying parents might feel less trusted.

83. 58% of receiving parent respondents to the consultation agreed that removing Direct Pay would help abuse victims whilst 58% of paying parent respondents disagreed.

84. Stakeholder support for this proposal generally echoed that of respondents, but there was concern from some stakeholder organisations that the change would not have any meaningful impact.

What we’re doing:

85. We plan to pursue the proposal to remove Direct Pay and consolidate the CMS into a single service type where it collects and transfers all payments.

86. Any reform will need to improve compliance, get money flowing faster to children and protect victims and survivors of domestic abuse, and we believe that the best way to achieve this will be by consolidating the CMS into one service.

87. We also recognise from responses that confidence in the CMS is low. We believe that the change to a single service type will enable the CMS to improve the efficiency of the service in a number of ways, including: identifying non-compliance; acting more quickly to re-establish compliance; faster, more responsive case handling; and improved, fewer and clearer customer communications.

88. By removing Direct Pay and moving everyone into a service where all payments are monitored, we will be able to identify non-compliance more easily and take steps to re-establish compliance more quickly. Currently in Direct Pay, the onus is on the receiving parent to report incidents of non-, late or partial payments, but current guidance is to wait five days before reporting it to the CMS, which can be time consuming and cause conflict. For victims and survivors of domestic abuse, this could lead to interaction with the paying parent and trauma for the receiving parent, as well as the fear of risking provoking further abuse by reporting non-compliance. We want to reduce these barriers by monitoring all payments and taking fast and efficient enforcement action.

89. Consolidating the service will remove issues that arise when customers request a service type change, which we know is the root cause of many of the problems customers have with the service. Around 79% of new CMS applications assigned to a service within their first 3 months in the quarter ending December 2024 started on Direct Pay. In the same period, only around 58% of all CMS arrangements were on Direct Pay, as many Direct Pay arrangements break down, requiring a change to Collect and Pay[footnote 16]. We expect the move to a single service type will address these issues.

90. The change to a single service where the CMS monitors and transfers all payments will also increase CMS efficiency and the scope for automation within the service. This will help achieve greater innovation in the way we deliver our services and will result in a more consistent service.

We asked:

  • Question 14: Do you agree there should be a notice period for parents who use Direct Pay before moving to a new service?

  • Question 15: What do you think would be a sufficient amount of time for parents currently using Direct Pay to make a decision about the future of their CMS case [3 months or less/6 months/One year/Don’t know]?

You said:

91. Both receiving parent respondents (52%) and paying parent respondents (85%) were in favour of some form of notice period for parents who use Direct Pay before moving to another service.

92. Receiving parent respondents were more in favour of a shorter transition period, with 79% of those expressing a preference opting for 3 months or less. Responses from the paying parent group who had a firm view were more mixed, with 46% opting for 1 year and the remainder split between 3 months or less and 6 months.

93. Stakeholder organisations were in agreement that there needs to be a transition period, but many did not have a firm view and those who did had different views on how long it should be, ranging from 3 months or fewer to 12 months, though the most common view was 3 months or less.

What we’re doing:

94. There will be a notice period of 3 months for customers who currently have Direct Pay cases before moving to the new service.

95. As part of the transition process, the parent who opened the case will have the changes explained and be advised of their options: remain in the CMS on the single, monitored service or, where it is safe and appropriate, move to a private, family-based arrangement.

96. We understand the importance of ensuring that changes are carefully managed, communicated, monitored and evaluated and that we provide appropriate support for family-based arrangements. This will be essential to avoid parents dropping out of the system, ending up with an inappropriate arrangement or even facing further abuse.

Chapter 3: Fees

97. Chapter 3 set out how collection fees underpin the CMS and outlined our proposal to maintain fees in the proposed new service.

98. The proposed fees are:

  • 2% for receiving parents, deducted from maintenance received
  • 2% for compliant paying parents, in addition to their child maintenance liability
  • 20% for non-complaint paying parents, in addition to their child maintenance liability

99. This differs from current collection fees in Collect and Pay, which are:

  • 4% for receiving parents, deducted from maintenance received
  • 20% for paying parents, in addition to their child maintenance liability

100. The child maintenance liability differs from the final amount that a paying parent will pay, i.e. their scheduled amount. Child maintenance liability is the calculated amount of child maintenance, whereas the scheduled amount includes child maintenance liability, plus fees, plus an amount towards outstanding arrears, if necessary. Collection fees are calculated from the child maintenance liability only

101. While the current Direct Pay service does not charge customers collection fees, we asked respondents for their thoughts on the current Collect and Pay fees (above), and on the comparable, proposed 2% fee for receiving and compliant paying parents in the new service.

102. Respondents were asked for their thoughts on the 20% non-compliance fee specifically, as well as whether they believed the suite of fees would have a positive effect on encouraging paying parents to pay their maintenance.

103. We proposed exempting those paying via a deduction from benefit order from the 20% non-compliance fee and asked for views on this.

We asked:

  • Question 16: What are your views on the current fee rates for receiving and paying parents in Collect and Pay?

  • Question 17: Are you in favour of a 2% fee for receiving parents and a 2% fee for compliant paying parents under a scheme where the CMS monitors and transfers all maintenance payments?  

  • Question 18: Please could you explain your answer?

You said:

104. 58% of receiving parent respondents and 76% of paying parent respondents were not in favour of a 2% fee for receiving parents and compliant paying parents for the CMS to monitor and transfer payments.

105. Receiving parent respondents suggested that the 2% fee for receiving parents would be unfair for those who had no choice about using the service, and that it could reduce the amount of maintenance that goes to children. Receiving parent respondents were, however, more content with the fee for compliant paying parents, finding the amount acceptable.

106. Direct Pay research found that 50% of receiving parents would be willing to pay a small fee for a CMS with additional features like collection and enforcement of payments for all cases, compared to 19% of paying parents.  68% of receiving parents would continue to use the CMS if there was a small fee, with a further 18% of receiving parents unsure how it would affect their choices about child maintenance arrangements, compared to 22% of paying parents inclined to stay in the CMS and a further 16% unsure[footnote 17].

107. Paying parent respondents to the consultation were also largely against a fee for receiving parents due to perceived unfairness and viewed it as a profit-making move from the CMS. Paying parents were strongly against the fee for compliant paying parents and found it to be excessive and unfair. Paying parents again highlighted distrust in the CMS and that unaffordable fees could negatively impact children.

108. Thoughts on the fee proposals among stakeholder organisations were split, with some recognising the need for fees, the incentive to remain compliant to avoid the 20% fee and being satisfied that compliant fees were equal for both parents. Others believed that both (compliant) parents should have no fees, largely due to affordability issues.

109. There was acceptance among some stakeholder organisations that offering only a fee-paying service may incentivise making a family-based arrangement, though caution was expressed around not advertising these to inappropriate cases (i.e. where domestic abuse is a factor). Some stakeholder organisations commented on the potential negative impact 2% fees will have on money going to children.

What we’re doing:

110. We plan to pursue the 2% fee for both receiving parents and compliant paying parents in the reformed service, as proposed.

111. We acknowledge that some receiving parents perceive the 2% fee as unfair for those that have no choice but to use the service. A reformed service is expected to improve our ability to re-establish compliance more efficiently and the fee will offset the investment needed to make the reform and contribute to the cost of using enforcement powers to re-establish compliance and reduce the burden on the taxpayer. The proposed 2% is lower than current Collect and Pay fees for both parents – halved for receiving parents and significantly reduced for compliant paying parents.

112. The government does not intend to remove fees for victims and survivors of domestic abuse. We think it is not in the best interest of customers to have a system that relies on self-identification by victims and survivors of abuse. Having a system designed in this way would risk inconsistent treatment of cases and decisions, as evidence would need to be provided and reviewed and verified by a caseworker. We know that evidence of abuse can be difficult to obtain, and where it is available, can be traumatic for victims and survivors to re-live. As well as being a difficult process for both customers and caseworkers, this would risk compromising the expected service efficiencies this change would bring about. We believe it is better to have a system that manages all customers’ cases as effectively as possible and charges a small fee to contribute to the cost of the service and offset the investments needed in the reform programme and enhanced service we intend to provide.

113. Many paying parent respondents perceived a fee for receiving parents as unfair and motivated by profit for the CMS. The Government is clear that the reformed fee structure is necessary for a number of reasons, including paying for the initial investment needed to make the reform, further contributing to the cost of the service, including the cost of enforcement activity on more cases, and easing the burden on taxpayers since collection fees do not and will not fully fund the cost of the service.

114. In response to concerns that fees for compliant parents could negatively impact children, parents already able to maintain a good relationship and compliant Direct Pay arrangement may be suited to a family-based arrangement, and improved support in moving to and sustaining one will be provided in the reformed service. However, for parents who would prefer the support of the CMS for monitoring and addressing non-compliance more quickly, we feel that it is reasonable to ask for a small fee towards running it, particularly in the context of an improved service. Recouping money for the taxpayer from the Child Maintenance System is not unusual internationally, often through benefit recovery. Unlike other countries, in our system, child maintenance payments are ignored in a benefits means test, allowing more money to flow to poorer parents in receipt of child maintenance. International research has highlighted the relative effectiveness of our child maintenance system, compared to other countries, at lifting children out of poverty.

We asked:

  • Question 19: Do you agree that the CMS should maintain a 20% fee for non-compliant paying parents?

  • Question 20: Please could you explain your answer?

You said:

115. 73% of receiving parent respondents agree that the CMS should maintain a 20% fee for non-compliant paying parents. 73% of paying parent respondents disagreed.

116. Generally, receiving parent respondents felt that this fee was a reasonable expectation that would provide consequences for non-compliance, leading to improved compliance. Paying parent respondents felt the fee would be unfair and unaffordable in some cases.

117. There were mixed views towards this fee from stakeholder organisations. It was asserted that non-compliance is often caused by affordability issues and if a paying parent is having issues affording their maintenance, adding 20% to their obligation isn’t going to help. On the other hand, some stakeholder organisations saw this as an important deterrent that would act as an incentive for paying parents to pay compliantly.

What we’re doing:

118. We plan to pursue the inclusion of the 20% fee for non-compliant paying parents in the reformed service, as proposed.

119. Opinion on the 20% fee for non-compliant paying parents is strongly divided according to the respondent’s role within the system. The purpose of the 20% fee for non-compliance under the current system is to incentivise paying parents to stay compliant, ensuring that money flows to the child without delay. The non-compliance fee also helps to offset some of the cost to the CMS in having to take steps to re-establish compliance and collect arrears.

120. We plan to make it easier for paying parents to demonstrate compliance and get back on to the 2% fee. The compliance opportunity (i.e. the process of the paying parent demonstrating a pattern of compliant behaviour to get back onto the 2% fee) is not generally offered proactively in the current service which results in paying parents that could be eligible for a compliance opportunity, paying the 20% fee. With greater opportunities for automation in the new service, there will be increased compliance opportunities for paying parents. This, along with the other provisions, will we hope help to support affordability of maintenance and have a positive impact on long term compliance.

121. Some paying parents are concerned about not receiving a fair hearing in cases of alleged non-compliance. To mitigate against this under the reformed service, we will continue with an easily explained definition of non-compliance, that a paying parent must pay in full and on time. With the CMS monitoring all payments, non-compliance will be identified faster and there is greater opportunity for automation and improved consistency of decisions.

122. Furthermore, where paying parents have a genuine reason for missed or incomplete payments, this will be taken into consideration, with the inclusion of a process whereby the paying parent can explain their position and caseworkers apply discretion as to whether it constitutes non-compliance. We envisage providing a comprehensive but iterative list of genuine reasons for missed payments in guidance; some examples are likely to include banking errors or system errors on either the parent or CMS side and paying parent illness meaning they are unable to make a payment. In cases where a caseworker deems a paying parent was not non-compliant, they can be put back onto the 2% fee straight away.

123. Early detection of non-compliance and intervention will prevent paying parents accruing unmanageable arrears. By proactively moving paying parents off the 20% fee following 6 months of compliance, overall payments will be reduced to the lower fee more quickly and debt build-up reduced.

124. Following implementation, we will evaluate the impacts of the 20% non-compliance fee in the context of processes for identifying non-compliance and proactively identifying paying parents who can be moved off it.

We asked:

  • Question 21: Are you in favour of the CMS exempting those paying by deduction from benefit from non-compliance fees? (Yes/No/Don’t know)

  • Question 22: Please could you explain your answer?

You said:

125. 53% of receiving parents and 36% of paying parents opposed the CMS exempting paying parents on deduction from benefits orders from the non-compliance fee. Opposition to the exemption was most commonly because it was felt it would be unfair or because it would reduce accountability for making payments.

126. While not every stakeholder responded to this question, there was support for this proposal among those that did.

What we’re doing:

127. As proposed, we will exempt those paying via a deduction from benefits order from the 20% non-compliance fee in the reformed service.

128. Our main reasoning for exempting those paying via a deduction from benefit order from the 20% non-compliance fee is because they have limited choice as to whether the payment is made. Not charging the 20% fee to customers on benefits will also put more money in their pockets and help boost their living standards.

We asked:

  • Question 23: Government is considering a fee structure of 2% for compliant paying parents, 20% for non-compliant paying parents and exempting those paying via a deduction from benefit order from the non-compliance fee. Do you agree that these proposals will encourage more paying parents to pay their maintenance (Yes/No/Don’t know)

  • Question 24: Please could you explain your answer?

You said:

129. 39% of receiving parents agreed that combined fees would improve compliance but only 11% of paying parents agreed.

130. Receiving parents were split on whether paying parents would be more likely to comply to avoid higher fees or whether additional tougher consequences for non-compliance would be needed to improve compliance. Paying parents felt that there should be no fees for compliant cases and introducing them would be unfair, potentially causing further financial strain on parents and leading to less money for children.

131. On whether the fee proposals would encourage compliance, some stakeholder organisations were concerned that they would have little to no effect on compliance, while others – particularly those representing paying parents – highlighted that affordability issues are what often leads to non-compliance, rather than an unwillingness to pay.

What we’re doing:

132. As explained in the response to the previous questions on fees, we will be pursuing fees as consulted on and exempting those paying via deduction from benefits from the 20% non-compliance fee. The reformed fee structure will be:

  • 2% for receiving parents, deducted from maintenance received;
  • 2% for compliant paying parents, in addition to child maintenance liability; and
  • 20% for non-compliant paying parents, in addition to child maintenance liability.

Chapter 4: Domestic abuse

133. In chapter 4 we sought views on how the CMS currently operates for, and supports victims and survivors of, domestic abuse, and what further support the CMS could offer for these customers.

134. In connection with the overarching proposal to reform service types we asked respondents whether they thought that removing Direct Pay would be beneficial to CMS customers who are victims and survivors of domestic abuse.

We asked:

  • Question 25: Do you think CMS domestic abuse procedures help support victims and survivors of domestic abuse when using the CMS? (Yes/No/Don’t know)

  • Question 26: Please could you explain your answer?

You said:

135. 50% of receiving parent respondents and 50% of paying parent respondents think that CMS abuse procedures do not help support abuse victims when using the CMS. A further 37% of receiving parent respondents and 44% of paying parent respondents were unsure.

136. Paying parent respondents often felt that receiving parents/gender bias meant paying parent abuse victims were not adequately supported.

137. Stakeholder organisations generally believed there was room for improvement in CMS domestic abuse procedures, commenting that customers need more protection against financial and coercive control and that there is a need for improved specialised caseworker training. Receiving parent respondents mentioned similar shortcomings to those raised by stakeholder organisations.

What we’re doing:

138. It is clear from consultation responses that both receiving parents and paying parents think that the CMS could do more to support victims and survivors of domestic abuse, and we take this extremely seriously.

139. We are committed to ensuring that victims and survivors of abuse get the help and support they need to use the CMS safely. Over the past 18 months, the CMS has updated and refreshed domestic abuse training, which now includes financial and coercive control and better awareness of how abuse can affect parents irrespective of gender. We developed our domestic abuse training with customer representation groups, drawing on their expertise and experience.

We asked:

  • Question 27: What are your views on the single, named caseworker for victims, survivors of domestic abuse?

You said:

140. Around half of receiving parent respondents and around a third of paying parent respondents expressed positive views about having a single, named caseworker for victims and survivors of abuse. Some highlighted this approach would improve communication and consistency as users would not need to repeatedly explain the same issue to different caseworkers. However, some parents were unaware that this service was available.

141. The majority of stakeholder organisations would find the single named caseworker initiative helpful, saying that it would prevent victims re-living trauma by constantly needing to re-tell their experiences and allowing customers to build trust with their caseworker. Some stakeholder organisations again re-iterated the need for improved, specialised training.

What we’re doing:

142. The CMS has introduced an operational team delivering targeted support to parents subject to the most challenging or complex domestic abuse. All CMS caseworkers are trained to identify and refer appropriate cases to the team. Caseworkers working on the team have been trained to provide a tailored and discrete service to customers and through this process, offering– if required - a “named caseworker” to prevent customers having to retell their story at each interaction.

143. Responses showed that some customers were not aware of the service. The domestic abuse specialist caseworker team is a discrete and tactful service that we do not expect customers to be aware of. The CMS determines which cases are referred to the team and offer, if required, a ‘named caseworker’ to prevent customers having to retell their story at each interaction. All cases in enforcement, where the most intensive contact between the CMS and customers is needed, have a single person managing the enforcement action on their case, with other action on the case completed by the ‘named caseworker’.

We asked:

  • Question 28: Do you agree removing Direct Pay completely would benefit victims, survivors of domestic abuse who use the CMS? (Yes/No/Don’t know)

  • Question 29: Please could you explain your answer?

You said:

144. 58% of receiving parent respondents agree that removing Direct Pay would benefit abuse victims. The most common reason for this was because it would reduce the ex-partner’s ability to abuse them. Meanwhile, 58% of paying parent respondents disagreed that this would be beneficial. This group wanted Direct Pay to be retained in some capacity, saying its removal would be unfair on compliant paying parents.

145. The majority of responding stakeholder organisations agreed that removing Direct Pay would benefit victims and survivors of domestic abuse. This was largely for reasons that it would help to minimise contact and help reduce abuse (particularly financial control and coercion). It was highlighted that the CMS should be robust and efficient with enforcement for these changes to be effective.

146. Research with Direct Pay customers also showed that additions to the service like collecting payments, initiating enforcement on non-payments, and reducing contact with the other parent are all of significantly more interest to receiving parent domestic abuse survivors than those without any history of abuse[footnote 18].

What we’re doing:

147. As previously stated, we plan to pursue the proposal to remove Direct Pay and manage all cases on a single service type.

148. We believe that removing Direct Pay would benefit victims and survivors of domestic abuse in a number of ways, such as by preventing unwanted contact between parents and removing an opportunity for perpetrators of economic control and coercion to use those behaviours in the context of the service. It also removes the need for the receiving parent to report non-compliance as is currently the case on Direct Pay, which some parents may not feel comfortable doing because of the risk of provoking retaliation.

149. By managing all customers in a single service type, there will be no expectation on parents to provide evidence of domestic abuse, which many parents do not have access to, and for those that do, can be traumatising to re-live, in order to change service types. These reforms implement, and go further than, the measures set out in the Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Act, which received Royal Assent in June 2023.

We asked:

  • Question 30: Assuming the CMS did manage the collection and transfer of all maintenance payments, what further support would you like to see the CMS offer to victims and survivors of domestic abuse?

  • Question 31: How do you think we could improve the CMS for victims and survivors of domestic abuse who are receiving parents?

  • Question 32: How do you think we could improve the CMS for victims and survivors of domestic abuse who are paying parents?

You said:

150. Receiving parents requested trauma trained caseworkers, signposting to external support, and tougher/quicker action on non-compliance. Paying parents wanted the CMS to recognise both male and female abuse victims and survivors, alleviate bias towards receiving parents, reduce CMS involvement due to a perceived lack of expertise, and bring in trained caseworkers.

151. Some suggestions that stakeholder organisations made for further support, included: improved domestic abuse and trauma-informed training; recognising different forms of abuse; collecting data on the number of domestic abuse victims using the service; and access to third party support, counselling, health services and legal advice.

152. Research with Direct Pay customers showed that receiving parents with a history of abuse particularly value being referred to relevant organisations that can provide targeted support in dealing with challenges they might face as separated parents[footnote 19].

What we’re doing:

153. The CMS treats parents equally and makes no reference to gender. Caseworkers are trained to recognise that paying parents can also be victims of domestic abuse and to identify manipulation through false claims and reporting of non-payments. To provide balance, caseworkers are also trained to identify incidents where responsibility for abusive behaviour is shifted by the perpetrator to the victim and survivor. Caseworkers are able to signpost customers to supporting organisations.

We asked:

  • Question 33: What do you think the barriers are to accessing the CMS for victims of domestic abuse?

You said:

154. Receiving parent respondents highlighted the risk of antagonising their ex-partner, and a desire to avoid contact with them as barriers to accessing the service. Paying parent respondents highlighted inefficiency (e.g. slow, inaccurate processing) in the CMS and bias towards receiving parents.

155. Stakeholder organisations agreed that there are some barriers to accessing the CMS for victims and survivors of domestic abuse, which they suggested include: the fear of antagonising their partner; insufficient caseworkers / fear of not being taken seriously/requirement for better training / CMS distrust; lack of awareness / not understanding how CMS can benefit them; and the financial barrier, namely fees.

What we’re doing:

156. The removal of Direct Pay will go some way to alleviate barriers for accessing the CMS for victims and survivors. Parents will not have to contact their ex-partner and there will no longer be an onus on the receiving parent to report non-compliance which we know can cause repeated trauma. Since 2020, the CMS has shifted its focus to look at how it can deliver services more efficiently and effectively by optimising the use of digital channels and self-service, whilst ensuring assistance is provided to help vulnerable and non-digital customers via the telephony service.

Next steps 

157. The changes outlined in this Government response demonstrate our commitment to lift more children out of poverty and align with our mission to break down barriers to opportunity. They also represent significant reform to the CMS, addressing some longstanding issues and providing improvements for many customers.

158. The changes we set out to remove Direct Pay and reform the collection fee structure will require changes to legislation which will be dependent on Parliamentary approval. Subject to securing Parliamentary time to make the necessary changes in legislation, we aim to implement them in 2027 to 2028.

159. As well as changes to service types described in this publication, we are planning to publish a consultation on proposed changes to the child maintenance calculation in late 2025.

Annex A: list of stakeholder organisations that responded to the consultation and or participated in roundtables discussions  

Advice Northern Ireland

Alliance Party Northern Ireland

Both Parents Matter (formerly Families Need Fathers)

Both Parents Matter Cymru (formerly Families Need Fathers)

Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG)

Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS)

Citizens Advice

Citizens Advice across Warwickshire

Department for Communities (Northern Ireland)

Domestic Abuse Commissioner

Dr Samantha Callan (Co-founder and Director of the Family Hubs network)

Fife Gingerbread

Gingerbread

Local Citizens Advice

Loughborough University

Man Kind

Money Advice Scotland

Money Wellness

National Association for Child Support Action (NACSA)

One Parent Families Scotland (OPFS)

Parenting Across Scotland

Positive Parenting Programme

Poverty Alliance

Scottish Women’s Aid

Shared Parenting Scotland

Step Change Debt Charity

Surviving Economic Abuse

Women’s Aid

  1. DWP Research, June 2025, Child Maintenance Service Direct Pay Research - a mixed-mode quantitative survey was conducted between 24 January and 23 February 2024 consisting of a total of 2,206 interviews with Direct Pay customers, of which 1,002 were paying parents and 1,204 were receiving parents. A sample of customers was randomly selected from CMS administrative data and participants were recruited by email, letter and telephone. In addition, in-depth-interviews were conducted with parents between 5 February and 4 March 2024 in which 50 interviews took place with 25 paying parents and 25 receiving parents. ↩

  2. For the very small proportion of responses where it was not clear whether the individual respondent was affiliated with a paying or a receiving parent, we have not allocated them to specific parent groups. We have included their feedback in the overall themes in the consultation response. ↩

  3. DWP, Household Below Average Income Statistics, March 2025. Relative low income measure, after housing costs. ↩

  4. DWP, Separated families statistics: April 2014 to March 2024 - GOV.UK.  Relative poverty after-housing costs. ↩

  5. DWP Research, June 2025, Child Maintenance Service Direct Pay Research. ↩

  6. National Audit Office, 3 March 2022, Child maintenance nao.org.uk. ↩

  7. Harold et al. (2016) What works to Enhance Inter-Parental Relationships and Improve Outcomes for Children. Department for Work and Pensions, April 2017, Improving lives: helping workless families. ↩

  8. DWP Research, June 2025, Child Maintenance Service Direct Pay Research. ↩

  9. DWP Research, June 2025, Child Maintenance Service Direct Pay Research. ↩

  10. DWP Research, June 2025, Child Maintenance Service Direct Pay Research. ↩

  11. DWP Research, June 2025, Child Maintenance Service Direct Pay Research. ↩

  12. DWP Research, June 2025, Child Maintenance Service Direct Pay Research. ↩

  13. DWP Research, June 2025, Child Maintenance Service Direct Pay Research. ↩

  14. DWP Research, June 2025, Child Maintenance Service Direct Pay Research. ↩

  15. DWP Research, June 2025, Child Maintenance Service Direct Pay Research. ↩

  16. DWP, Child Maintenance Service statistics: data to December 2024. ↩

  17. DWP Research, June 2025, Child Maintenance Service Direct Pay Research. ↩

  18. DWP Research, June 2025, Child Maintenance Service Direct Pay Research. ↩

  19. DWP Research, June 2025, Child Maintenance Service Direct Pay Research.   ↩

Back to top