Research and analysis

Separated Parents without a financial Child Maintenance arrangement: Qualitative Research

Published 7 October 2024

DWP research report no. 104

A report of research carried out by Ipsos UK on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions.

You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence.

Or write to:

Information Policy Team
The National Archives
Kew
London
TW9 4DU

Email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk

This document/publication is also available on the GOV.UK website

If you would like to know more about DWP research, email:
socialresearch@dwp.gov.uk

First published October 2024.

ISBN 978-1-78659-743-4

Views expressed in this report are not necessarily those of the Department for Work and Pensions or any other government department.

1. Acknowledgements

The research team wish to thank all the participants who gave their time to take part in this study.

2. Authors

This report was written by researchers at Ipsos UK Public Affairs:

3. Key findings

The research suggests that there is a clear appetite amongst separated parents to have financial arrangements, but both Parents with Care (PWC) and Non-resident Parents (NRP) experience a wide range of barriers to putting one in place.

For both PWC and NRPs, the relationship with the other parent was central to their decision making. Regardless of the perceived quality of the relationship, parents were reluctant to do anything which may change things. They assumed any change would likely be for the worse and have negative impacts on both the parents and children involved. The desire to maintain the status quo, even if it the status quo was undesirable, was strong among separated parents who feared further emotional distress, or parental alienation.

For PWCs, awareness of eligibility and available support was a considerable barrier to setting up financial support arrangements. These parents did not know where to start with setting up an arrangement and did not feel able to seek support and inform themselves at a time of significant stress. Decisions around whether to pursue an arrangement often involved PWCs weighing up the potential financial benefit against the possibility of conflict or a negative impact on the child’s relationship with the NRP. Furthermore, where there is domestic abuse involved, PWCs may feel that they have little choice around pursuing financial support due to concerns about their safety and wellbeing. Lack of awareness about the options of support provided in these cases was a key barrier.

For NRPs, the main barriers to having an arrangement were linked to affordability, with many saying that they simply could not afford to make a regular financial contribution. The level of conflict in the relationship with the PWC was also key to their decision making, including mistrust of how the PWC would spend any money provided and some resentment about the idea of their money being spent on general household costs.

Both PWCs and NRPs lack awareness of available support, including information and guidance. This suggests that there is a need for increased communications targeted at parents, to help them gain an understanding of what is available.

Both PWCs and NRPs would value more information at the time of separation, particularly general financial advice and information about what support services are available. Knowledge of services offered by Child Maintenance Servive (CMS) is particularly low. Both general awareness raising amongst parents, and targeted information for those experiencing a separation would be valued.

Some groups including PWCs affected by domestic violence, and male PWCs would benefit from specific targeted information, and advice to help ensure they feel empowered to seek the financial support they are entitled to.  

4. Background and methodology

4.1 Research Objectives

The main aim of this research was to explore the experiences and decision making of separated parents who do not have a child maintenance arrangement in place. Specific research objectives included:

• Understanding of what constitutes a financial child maintenance arrangement.
• Exploring the circumstances by which individuals became separated parents without a child maintenance arrangement.
• Understanding the barriers to setting up and maintaining a financial arrangement.
• Exploring the availability of support for separated parents and barriers to accessing this support.

4.2 Methodology

Interviews were conducted with 40 separated parents who did not have a regular financial child maintenance arrangement in place. Interviews took place online / over the telephone and lasted around 45 minutes each.

Within this, 24 interviews were conducted with Parents with Care (PWCs) and 16 were conducted with Non-resident Parents (NRPs). Interviews were non matched, meaning that only one parent from a family was invited to take part in the research.

The interviews were conducted between 20 October and 5 November 2021.

The COM-B behavioural framework was used in the development of research materials and during the analysis stage. The framework was used to ensure that all types of behaviour all drivers (relating to capability, opportunity and motivation) for not having a regular financial arrangement were systematically explored. For example:

• Capability factors – do the separated parents have the knowledge, skills and psychological stamina needed to set up a regular financial arrangement? How is this linked to their wider financial capability?
• Opportunity factors – is the other parent willing to have a regular financial arrangement in place?
• Motivation factors – do the separated parents want or need to have a regular financial arrangement in place?

4.3 Sampling and recruitment

Sample

The sample of parents for this study was developed from a previous Ipsos UK survey of separated parents conducted on behalf of DWP. The sample included survey respondents who reported that they did not have a financial arrangement in place and were happy to be recontacted for further research on this topic.

Quotas were put in place to ensure that the study included the sub-groups of interest, as well as a good range of wider personal and household characteristics. There were four sub-groups for the PWC and NRP groups covering:

1. No arrangement in place but respondent parent motivated to change this.

2. No arrangement in place and the respondent parent was not motivated to change this.

3. Non-financial arrangement in place but respondent parent motivated to change this.

4. Non-financial arrangement in place and the respondent parent was not motivated to change this.

In addition, quotas were put in place for gender, ethnicity, age, income, length of separation, length of relationship, age of children, whether the respondent parent was in a new relationship and whether the respondent parent had a disability or long-term condition. Specific quotas were not set for these, but were used to ensure a good range of separated parents and households were included in the research.

A table of the full achieved sample for the research is included in the Appendix.

Recruitment

Participants were recruited by telephone from the survey recontact list. During the recruitment calls, a screening questionnaire was used to confirm that the potential participant did not have a financial arrangement in place at that time.

During the recruitment phase it became apparent that some of the separated parents included in this study did have:

• a financial arrangement in place that the respondent parent was dissatisfied with and did not report in the survey.
• non-financial support arrangements in place.
• financial arrangements in place for other children in the household, including through the Child Maintenance Service (CMS).

Limitations

The sample used for this study was drawn from a survey contact list and it may be that these parents had a degree of engagement with the topic that may not be representative of all separated parents without a financial arrangement.

5. Findings

5.1 Participant backgrounds

Participants came from a range of different circumstances and situations, encompassing diversity in contact and care arrangements, as well as financial input. The possibility of financial support often went hand in hand with or was dependent on the relationship between co-parents.

Parents’ personal and financial circumstances

For Parents with Care (PWCs), the reason for separating from the Non-resident Parent (NRP) was a driving factor in their decision making around contact and maintenance arrangements. In some cases, involving domestic abuse, PWC participants had taken the decision to end all contact with the NRP, which in turn, impacted their options for setting up a financial arrangement as well as their feelings about seeking one. More widely, PWC participants reported a wide range of contact arrangements with the NRP, including limited or irregular contact with the child or children, and shared care arrangements.

PWC participants typically considered themselves to be the main financial provider for their child or children. In some cases, they were the sole provider, while in others they had some support from the NRP, a partner or other family members.

NRP participants reported a broad range in contact arrangements with their children. Some had little to no contact, while others had regular contact or close to a 50% shared care agreement. The contact and care arrangements in place strongly linked to decision making around financial arrangements.

For NRP participants that did provide support, this ranged from sporadic support to regular commitment such as paying for extra-curricular activities and clothing or paying money directly to the child. However, those who were engaged in these kinds of financial commitments did not describe them as a financial arrangement as they were not paying money directly or regularly to the PWC. a regular commitment did not view this as an arrangement as they were not paying anything directly and regularly to the other parent. PWC and NRP Participants who had more than one child with the other parent did not always have the same care and financial arrangements for each child. In some cases, participants were the PWC for some of their children and the NRP for others, depending on the needs and preferences for the children. There were also instances of care or custody arrangements for each child changing over time, spending some time living with each parent.

Parents’ definition of ‘financial support arrangement’

Participants’ views of what constituted a ‘financial support arrangement’ varied and whether participants labelled their situation as ‘arrangement’ did not impact how satisfied they were with their situation.

For some participants, a ‘financial support arrangement’ was synonymous with an arrangement set up through the Child Maintenance Service (CMS). These participants did not consider informal agreements between parents to be financial support arrangements, which they viewed as formal, regular and inflexible.

NRP, Female, said:

I would take a “financial arrangement” for a child not living with both parents as meaning the Child Maintenance Service. It would mean regular payments.

For others the defining characteristic of an arrangement, either made between parents, or made via the CMS was its regularity. Both PWCs and NRPs valued certainty in arrangements, knowing how much, and how frequently they would receive or provide support. However, NRPs were more likely to focus on this as their priority, whereas PWCs also highlighted the potential benefits of flexibility in arrangements.

Participants discussed other types of contribution or support that an NRP could provide, including paying for specific items or services, or making ad hoc payments to the PWC. These were viewed as a form of financial arrangement by some participants, although there were instances of both NRPs and PWCs who had these types of support in place but had reported that there was no financial arrangement. These participants did not define this type of support as an arrangement either because they did not pay any money to the PWC directly, or because the payments made by the NRP were irregular and voluntary.

5.2 Insights from Parents with care

The circumstances resulting in PWC participants not having a regular financial support arrangement were influenced by their capability to set up an arrangement, their motivation to do so and the opportunities that were available to them.

Underpinning this, was the nature of their relationship with the NRP, their confidence about being able to set up an arrangement, as well as the support available to them.

Impact of relationship with the NRP on decision making

For PWC participants, their relationship with the NRP was the most important factor in their decision making around seeking a financial arrangement. The extent to which the two parents were able to cooperate in a productive and safe way impacted PWC participants feelings about seeking an arrangement and the options available to set one up.

Broadly, the research identified three types of PWC, NRP relationship, each of which impacted PWC participant decision making about financial arrangements. These groups were, high collaboration relationships, high conflict relationships, and relationships involving domestic abuse.

High collaboration relationships were described by PWC participants who had a co-operative relationship with the NRP, including involvement in the child, or children’s care. Typically, PWC participants who had collaborative relationships with the NRP, would have liked to have had a financial arrangement in place but experienced barriers to setting one up.

Barriers for this group included lack of awareness of what they may be entitlement to, or what they should expect in terms of support from the NRP. Others were aware that they were entitled to financial contributions but believed the NRP would not be able to afford to make them and so chose not to seek one.

Care arrangements were also an important factor for this group. In some cases, care arrangements were close to 50/50 or had varied over time. In these instances, a financial arrangement was not always deemed to be necessary or appropriate as the sum due would be small and seeking it may damage the relationship.

Relationships which were described as high conflict, or at risk of conflict often led PWC participants to not seeking a financial arrangement from fear of worsening the relationship, particularly between the NRP and the child or children. These PWC participants sometimes had a good awareness if their entitlements and the options for financial arrangements but chose not to pursue them, instead prioritising the status quo. For these participants, the amount they believed they would be entitled to in a formal financial arrangement was an important factor. Many said they had chosen not to seek an arrangement as they believed the amount they would get would not be worth the likely conflict it would cause.

PWC participants who described themselves as survivors of domestic abuse from their relationship with the NRP said they had not pursued a financial arrangement for this reason. These participants said they needed to prioritise the safety of themselves and their children and feared further abuse from the NRP if they tried to put a financial arrangement in place.

Capability factors affecting decision making

Capability factors largely centred around PWC participants’ ability to contact the NRP, their awareness of their entitlements and the support available to them to get an arrangement in place.

Lack of awareness of entitlements was the main capability barrier among PWC participants, particularly in cases where there was a high conflict relationship with the NRP which made an informal arrangement impossible to agree. Some participants had been told by the NRP that they weren’t entitled to claim anything. In the absence of further information, they took this at face value, or believed that without co-operation from the NRP, an arrangement couldn’t be enforced.

PWC, Female, said:

He just says it’s not his responsibility. That he doesn’t need to pay.

Participants were not always aware that it is possible to make a claim without having direct contact with the NRP or disclosing their contact details. For those with a history involving domestic abuse, this could be of critical importance as they feared further abuse if their personal details were disclosed.

PWC, Female, said:

I think if the Jobcentre had let me know, that would have been a big help, especially with them knowing that there was domestic abuse and violence involved. They could have told me that I could contact child maintenance [services], and they could have taken over the claim for me and do things on my behalf.

Other PWC participants recalled periods of time when they had been unaware of the whereabouts of the NRP, and they did not know how to set up an arrangement without this knowledge.

A lack of knowledge went hand in hand with a lack of confidence around asking for maintenance, and the appropriateness of this. Some were unsure what they could ask for or how to approach the conversation. These concerns were exacerbated for the high conflict subgroup but could also be a concern for the high collaboration group if they felt that their relationship was quite fragile.

Underpinning these barriers was a lack of awareness of CMS or other sources of support for PWCs. This meant that when the financial support was not openly forthcoming from the NRP, they did not know what their options were in getting an arrangement set up. Where participants did not already have knowledge of what they were entitled to or where to seek support, they did not necessarily feel that they were emotionally or practically in a position to start looking for further information. This reflected the complex and often distressing situations that they were in.

PWC, Female, said:

There was so much going on that I did not have the energy to look for any help.

In summary, PWC participants who described themselves as a survivor of domestic abuse, or as being in high conflict relationship with the NRP needed to have awareness of the following to feel able to seek a financial arrangement:

• their entitlement to claim
• their right not to disclose contact details
• the support available to set up an arrangement and confidence to access it
• the options available for arrangements
• the process for setting up an arrangement – including where they do not have contact details for the NRP.

Case illustration 1: PWC capability barriers to seeking an arrangement

Sarah is a parent with care (PWC) who had an older daughter (16+) and a younger daughter (under 5) with a different father.

She had used the Child Support Agency (CSA) to maintain a child maintenance agreement with her eldest child. However, payments through this arrangement stopped without explanation, and so she did not seek support through CMS for her younger daughter as she was under the impression that the CMS/CSA were no longer running their services.

Reasons for not seeking support from CMS

Sarah did not seek support to set up a financial arrangement with the NRP of their youngest daughter because they were not aware of the services offered by CMS, despite the Sarah having used the CSA for another child with a different NRP. Awareness of CMS support was absent because of the lack of formal information she had received about CMS support during her pregnancy and just after her child was born. She had become aware about the CSA for her eldest child via a letter sent to her by CSA and through a friend telling her about the service. She only became aware of CMS recently because of a letter sent to her by the CMS.

PWC, Female, said:

It’s only recently… I got a letter from the CSA [CMS], and I was like oh, they are still doing stuff.

Information and support needs

Sarah said that the following information would have helped ensure she was aware of her entitlements and how to go about getting a financial arrangement set up:

• information about child maintenance support services which could be sent to parents at specific points in time, for example, through the post around the time of pregnancy or birth.
• including a phone number on any information sent about support services so that the parent could discuss their situation.
• reminders via SMS about how to access child maintenance service.

5.3 Motivation factors affecting decision making

Motivation barriers included PWC participants’ fear of disrupting the status quo and fear of losing autonomy, balanced with their perceptions of the likely financial value of an arrangement and how helped the CMS would be in setting one up.

Primarily, PWC participants were motivated to avoid anything that could worsen the relationship between the NRP and the child or children. They often described having invested considerable energy in developing safety, stability and autonomy since separation and they did not want to risk this. Financial arrangement conversations were thought to involve a high risk of antagonising the NRP and disrupting the fragile contact and care arrangements they had worked hard to put in place.

PWC, Female, said:

I’d like some financial support, but I’m also happy that my son sees his dad.

There was a fear that conflict with the NRP would result from a conversation about financial maintenance, particularly for those who described having a high conflict relationship. These participants feared that further conflict could cause themselves or their child or children further emotional pain, something they were motivated to avoid, especially in the time following a painful separation.

On top this, PWC participants described managing other stresses including domestic burden as the PWC, ill-health or stress of legal proceedings relating to the separation which meant they were reluctant to add more stress to their lives during such a difficult time.

Maintenance of the status quo was a key motivation for many PWC participants, including for those who did not find their status quo particularly desirable. However negative the situation was, there was always a fear that it could be worse, and that conversations around financial maintenance would be likely to worsen these relationships.

Even among PWC participants who described having a high collaboration relationship with the NRP, there were always concerns that these fragile agreements about care or ad hic financial support could be broken if the subject of money was raised.

PWC participants also described valuing their independence and autonomy. Some were reluctant to be seen to be asking for anything from the NRP. This was particularly a concern, in the high conflict group and if an arrangement was likely to be conditional on terms stipulated by the NRP, for instance regarding contact arrangements.

PWC participants weighed up all these fears and concerns against what they believed they stood to gain through a financial arrangement. Where the NRP had a low income, they felt that any support they stood to gain was not worth it if there was a high risk of conflict.

PWC, Female, said:

It is not worth the confrontation to chase it. My relationship with my ex-partner is OK and he is seeing our daughter every day. So, it seems a lot faff for little reward, so it is not worth worrying about.

There were also concerns about enforcement of an arrangement, in cases where the PWC participant believe the NRP would be unlikely to pay without third party involvement. Some were unsure about whether it was worth trying to set an arrangement up because they were concerned whether it could be enforced.

Negative experiences of friends and family who had been unsuccessful seeking child maintenance fed into this scepticism, leading some to believe that seeking an arrangement would jeopardise the fragile status quo for nothing.

In summary, PWC participants’ motivation to make an arrangement was dependent on their feeling that:

• any conflict arising from this would not damage the relationship or contact between NRP and child.
• any conflict arising would not cause them significant stress.
• the amount that they stood to receive from the NRP was significant enough to be worth any likely conflict.
• an arrangement would not be conditional on terms they didn’t agree to.

5.4 Opportunity factors affecting decision making

Opportunity barriers for PWC participants included fears of jeopardising their safety by seeking an arrangement, the NRP being unwilling to cooperate in setting up and arrangement, and the NRP not honouring arrangements once set up.

PWC participants described having little to no opportunity to set up a financial arrangement due to the poor relationship they had with the NRP, especially in cases involving domestic abuse, or where the NRP was non-cooperative.

Where there was a history of domestic abuse, this often meant that the PWC did not feel they had an opportunity for a financial arrangement. In some cases, they feared for their physical safety, if the NRP was to discover their whereabouts. In other cases, they felt that seeking an arrangement may lead to further verbal or emotional abuse.

PWC, Female, said:

I wanted to get away from that man. If we had any discussion about money, there would be some aggression so I would be putting myself at risk. I did not feel safe enough to do it. I thought the best thing to do would be to look after my children myself.

Some PWC participants had tried to access support such as mediation, to come to an arrangement. However, where the NRP was unwilling to engage with this, they were unable to progress.

PWC, Male, said:

I did try to get mediation, but it was refused by my ex-wife. She wasn’t prepared to sit in a room with strangers and discuss our business.

The PWC participants’ perceptions of the NRP’s financial circumstances, attitudes and behaviours were also discussed as barriers to seeking a financial arrangement. Some PWC participant believed the NRP was unable to afford to provide support so thought they was not point in seeking it. In other cases, particularly where there was high conflict, PWC participants felt that the NRP was concealing their income, particularly where this was cash in hand, or they were self-employed.

PWC, Female, said:

They kept on saying that it is really difficult when someone is self-employed. We think that whatever he was earning was going into his partner’s account and they can’t touch that.

Some PWC participants said they had made financial arrangements through CMS, but these had not been honoured by the NRP. In some cases, PWC participants said they had been trying to chase maintenance payments for many years, even involving local MPs, but to no avail.

In summary, PWC participants’ opportunity to make an arrangement was dependent on:

• feeling confident that their safety and wellbeing would not be compromised.
• being able to access relevant support, including where this required co-operation from the NRP.
• the NRP being able to afford to pay.
• the NRP being willing to comply with an arrangement.

Case illustration 2: PWC opportunity barriers to seeking an arrangement

Isabelle is a parent with care (PWC) with one young child. She fled an abusive relationship with her child’s father two years ago. She now lives with a new partner. She is the main source of financial support for her child, though her partner contributes in terms of general household costs, as well as support with day-to-day care.

Reasons for not seeking a financial arrangement

Isabelle avoided contact with the NRP after she left, due to the abuse. Despite intervention from the police and other agencies, he continued to harass and make threats against her and her family. She was now relocated to a new area. She has never pursued any kind of financial support for fear of opening herself to further abuse. She does not feel that she has any option in this matter as she believes pursuing financial support could put her and her child at risk.

PWC, Female, said:

I was told about applying for that [child maintenance] but at the time things were very explosive, and I imagine if I was to try to apply for anything like that now, it would become like that again. I was actually diagnosed with PTSD from the whole thing

Information and support needs

Isabelle was unaware of how she could seek financial support without coming directly into contact with the NRP, and she feared that he would be able to find out where she was. However financial support would be of benefit to her, and if she could be assured that the NRP would be unable to contact her, she suggested that she may consider this. Nevertheless, she remained uncertain due to concerns that any action on her part may prompt him to try and find her.

PWC, Female, said:

Even now I don’t feel like I can [seek child maintenance]. I feel like if I did that, he’s going to put us through all the abuse again and threaten us. There’s nothing to protect us from him doing that or him finding out where we are.

5.5 Awareness and experiences of support

Awareness, attitudes and experiences of CMS

PWC participants described a range of barriers to seeking support with setting up a financial arrangement, including lack of awareness of CMS or having negative attitudes towards, or experiences of CMS which meant it was considered as a last resort.

Overall, awareness of CMS was limited, some PWC participants were unaware of what the service was for, while others understood it to be an enforcement service for gaining maintenance from a non-resident parent. Participants were generally unaware of support that CMS could provide, other than the online calculator, and setting up a formal arrangement. Awareness of CMS typically came from knowing others who had accessed the service – this also meant that some of the information they had could be incorrect or outdated.

PWC participants who were aware of CMS were often reluctant to access it, and it was seen as a last resort due to the negative impact they believed involving the CMS would have on their relationship with the NRP. An informal arrangement was felt to be more conducive to better relations with the NRP and so CMS was only seen as suitable in situations where there was no contact or the relationship had already broken down to an irretrievable extent.

Generally, those who had experiences with CMS described these as not being successful, saying that they had either been unable to set it up or had not received any money from the NRP. Because of this, there was some concern about the effectiveness of CMS and ability to enforce arrangements. Nevertheless, some still found CMS to be helpful and supportive in experiences of dealing with them.

PWC, Female, said:

I don’t believe that CMS could have done anything else. They were always friendly. They always understood our plight. But I do understand that short of camping out on his doorstep, there is little more they can do.

Experiences of other types of support services

Awareness of support services was low, and this affected PWCs ability to set up arrangements. While participants often would have welcomed support, they simply did not know what kind of support was available. This lack of awareness also made it quite difficult for them to make specific suggestions around what would be helpful to them, as they struggled to think of what options there might be.

PWC, Female, said:

Anything helps when you have a child, and you are by yourself – financial advice or any other form of support.

This lack of awareness meant that PWC participants had typically accessed little in the way of support. Some had tried to access support such as mediation but had not been successful due to lack of co-operation from the NRP. Some of those who had fled domestic violence had received other kinds of support relating to their circumstances, but not specifically relating to financial arrangements.

Male PWCs reported that it was particularly difficult to access support as the default position was that the mother would be PWC. They had difficulty getting child benefit transferred to them, and in some cases did not appear aware that men could claim child maintenance.

5.6 Support needs

General support needs

PWCs across a range of circumstances identified a need for a greater base level of general awareness about finances, entitlements and where to access support with setting up a financial arrangement.

PWC, Female, said:

I think that the support I needed at that time was financial advice, pretty much, on what I could do on my own because even now, I owe a hell of a lot of money to previous relationships. I’m the one that got the brunt of every single debt that anyone has ever accumulated around me. No matter how many times I try and get the debt put onto the right person, I get nowhere so I am kind of stuck with lots of money coming out of my account each month for other people’s debts. I just get on with it as best I can.

Many PWC [participants said they would have benefitted from information and support at the point of their relationship breakdown. It was acknowledged that in some cases, relationship breakdowns may be complex and protracted, so identifying the most appropriate time to target support may be a challenge.

They were unsure of where they would like to be able to access this, or how they could be made aware. However, some suggested that the job centre could play a role in disseminating information, particularly if the relationship breakdown affected their relationship with the job centre or benefits claims or entitlements.

More broadly, participants suggested that there could be a role for a wider awareness raising campaign targeted at parents in general, rather than those going through a breakup. An example suggested was to include some information alongside other information packs provided antenatally or postnatally.

Participants felt it would be beneficial for parents in general to already have the basic concepts about entitlements and where they could access advice and support, not just at the time around the relationship breakdown, when it is likely that they would be struggling to take in new information. Participants acknowledged they might not take in much information received at a time it didn’t feel relevant to them. Nevertheless, exposure to it could give them enough awareness to seek out further information when it was relevant.

Specific support needs

In addition to increasing basic awareness across the board, there were some types of support and guidance that would benefit specific groups of PWCs.

PWC participants who described high conflict relationships with the NRP said they would benefit from support around relationship management, such as mediation, or guidance around approaching conversations related to financial arrangements.

This support would be focused on reducing the conflict between co-parents, thereby making it easier to set up and maintain an arrangement, or on reducing the impact that setting up an arrangement would have on the relationship between PWC and NRP.

Survivors of domestic abuse said they would benefit from guidance around how to pursue a financial arrangement without making direct contact with the NRP or disclosing their contact details. This group needed clear reassurance that their confidentiality would not be compromised, and ways to ensure that seeking an arrangement would not increase their risk of further abuse.

Finally, male PWC participants felt that information relating to child maintenance arrangements, or other financial support for parents was targeted at women. They did not always recognise information or guidance as being relevant to them and said they would benefit from clearer signposting around their eligibility and entitlements.

5.7 Insights from Non-resident Parents

NRP participants also discussed a range of barriers relating to capability, motivation and opportunity which prevented them from putting a financial arrangement in place. As with the PWC participants, underpinning this, was the nature of their relationship with the PWC, including their ability to contact them, desire to avoid conflict, and mistrust around how support would be spent by the PWC.

Capability factors affecting decision making

NRP participants identified affordability as the main factor in whether they felt able to set up a financial arrangement. Those who reported having a low or irregular income, especially those who were out of work typically said they were not able to commit to providing regular financial support. Some felt it was manageable to provide ad hoc support, while others said they could not afford to make any kind of financial contribution.

NRP, Male, said:

Having an official arrangement would leave me always not being able to feed myself. And if I was to offer her money now, she wouldn’t accept it now, but then it would only be £20 a month.

A further barrier identified by some NRP participants was being unable to contact the PWC, and therefore, they did not believe they could set up an arrangement. Inability to make contact could be a result of legal injunctions due to domestic abuse.

In summary, the capability for NRPs to make an arrangement was dependent on:

• being able to afford to pay.
• being able to contact the PWC to set up an arrangement.

Case illustration 3: NRP capability barriers to setting up an arrangement

Ben is an NRP with two teenaged children. He has a relatively amicable relationship with his ex-wife and has contact with his children most days. This typically involves him visiting the family home and helping with homework, or sometimes having a meal with his ex-wife and children. He also participates in other household tasks such as walking the dogs.

Reasons for not setting up a financial arrangement

Ben used to work but due to health issues he is no longer able to carry out his former profession. Currently, he is reliant on universal credit. When he moved out of the marital home, he was housed by the council but was then made homeless as he could not afford his utility bills. He is now living with family but struggles to afford basics even for himself. He therefore feels that he has nothing that he can contribute financially to his children.

NRP, Male, said:

My situation, I’m not in a position to provide for my children…I offer support by spending time with them.

He would like to provide financially and is unhappy with the current situation, however he doesn’t think that there is any kind of support that would help him with an arrangement as the money simply is not there.

Ben was also struggling with mental health and with his current employment situation. He did not feel that he was able to access any support from the Jobcentre that was relevant to his situation.

5.8 Motivation factors affecting decision making

While NRP participants mostly described themselves as being positively motivated to financially support their children, they said that their relationship with the PWC created barriers to them doing so. There were also some NRP participants who said they did not feel they were responsible for providing any financial support.

The level of support provided by NRPs was closely tied to the level of contact they had with their children. Periods of increased financial contribution tended to coincide with periods of more contact with children. In these times, NRPs described taking on more of the caring responsibilities for their child or children, as well as taking on more financial costs for the children or household.

Financial contributions typically decreased or stopped completely during any periods of conflict with the PWC, especially if this also affected contact with the children. In cases where the NRP believed that the PWC was disrupting contact with the children, financial contributions tended to be negatively affected.

As with PWCs, the NRP participants also described not seeking a financial arrangement in order to avoid conflict, especially in cases where there was little to no contact between the parents.

NRP, Male, said:

I suppose its biting the bullet and having a conversation with someone that one, I really don’t like, and two, I really don’t want to talk to. But on the flip side I think I have to for the welfare of my children.

Some NRP participants said they did not feel that they had a responsibility to provide regular financial support. This was typically if they had spent some time as the PWC or if there were multiple children of whom they were PWC for one or more.

NRP, Male, said:

We get on to a reasonable degree, but she knows not to ask me for anything.” [because she did not pay him when he was PWC].

There was also some evidence of NRPs feeling that they didn’t have a responsibility simply because they had not been approached for an arrangement by the PWC, or because they believed responsibility to be dependent on having contact or other involvement in their child’s life. In another case, the NRP had been very young when they had their child and had never taken much responsibility for them, so this had just become the status quo.

In summary, NRP participants’ motivation to make an arrangement was dependent on:

• a belief that they had a responsibility to provide support.
• a commitment that their responsibility to provide support outweighed the strain or conflict that may arise from communicating with the PWC.

In some cases, motivation was also dependent on having contact and other involvement in their child’s life.

Case illustration 4: NRP motivation barriers to setting up an arrangement

Adam is an NRP. He has 2 teenage children, as well as 2 adult children from a different relationship.

He had a very on-off relationship with the mother of his 2 teenage children. He has had periods of contact with his children and has provided regular financial support at some points when his relationship with the PWC was more civil. However, following an argument around 7 years ago, he has had no further contact with the PWC.

Reasons for not setting up a financial arrangement

Adam said he fell out with the PWC after he had become unable to afford to visit his children and provide support. This was because his income had reduced due to a different ex-partner making a claim through CMS for an older child. As a result, he blames CMS for the breakdown in his relationship with his younger children.

He has a lot of anger towards the PWC and does not want to speak to her, although he acknowledges that he may need to at some point. This is the main barrier to setting up a financial arrangement. He has some limited contact with his children but has not seen them since the argument with their mother. He provides some ad hoc financial support directly to them but is very unhappy with the current situation.

NRP, Male, said:

I hate it [his current situation], I wish I could just see them. I’m working all the time. Work to keep my mind off it.

Adam said he would like to provide financially but the conflict with the PWC prevents him from making contact. He feels that some mediation may be helpful to help them to speak to each other, but at the same time is reticent about involving a third party in their business.

5.9 Opportunity factors affecting decision making

NRP participants felt their opportunity to provide financial support was limited, as they lacked control over how money would be spent by the PWC. The main concern NRP participants had was that money given to the PWC would not be spent on the child. In some cases, their mistrust of the PWC was reportedly based on previous behaviour, while in others it was simply a result of conflict in the relationship.

To overcome this concern, some preferred to avoid engagement with the PWC by providing support directly to the child. However, the success of this depended on the level of contact the NRP had with the child they were giving money to. Where there was day to day involvement, the NRP participants felt that their approach worked well as they could ensure the money was used positively and effectively for the child. Where contact was limited, this approach was sometimes described as unsuccessful as the child may be spending money with no parental oversight at all.

Others NRP participants reported that they had an informal arrangement for providing support but would have preferred a formalised arrangement through CMS so that there was clarity on all sides that their contribution was appropriate. This was preference was tied to a belief among some NRO participants that that money provided through CMS would be more likely to be spent appropriately. However, they did not feel there was opportunity for this unless the PWC made a claim as they did not think they could do so.

NRP, Male, said:

She would ring me ask for £50 for new trainers for the boy. I would give the £50 but he never got the new trainers. It made me feel better to know that the payment would be under control through the CMS arrangement.

5.10 Support experiences and needs

Awareness, attitudes and experiences of CMS

Perceptions of CMS varied among NRP participants, and this was driven by their level of knowledge and either personal experience of the service, or experiences of friends and family. Those with less experience assumed CMS would be punitive towards them.

NRP, Male, said:

I had heard quite bad stories about (CMS). My brother had been left with no money after they got involved after he had split up with his partner.

As with the PWC participants, NRPs were unaware of other support that CMS can provide, beyond set up and enforcement of arrangements. They would value more information and financial advice at the time of separation.

There were some positive experiences of CMS reported by NRP participants who said that the involvement of CMS had been helpful. Some NRP participants reported feeling that the maintenance amount was a fair amount, and others felt the service helped to create certainty about how much they would need to pay and when. Some NRP participants were also positive about the online calculator. They appreciated that it did not require lots of personal information and said it helped them to benchmark their contributions and have confidence that they were an appropriate amount.

NRP, Male, said:

It [online calculator] was really good. Because, you know everything you use seems to want to know who you are. What’s your address, what’s your insurance number blah blah blah. Yeah, and this was fantastic. I thought it was just that you put your figures in for obviously my last year’s figures…And it was brilliant.

There were also some negative experiences of CMS discussed by NRP participants. The main criticisms made of the service were that it does not consider whether the PWC allows contact or is a good parent to their child. Within this, there was a desire for the CMS to ensure that financial support directly benefitted the children in the claim.

Some NRP participants also felt that CMS should consider the impact which maintenance may have on their relationship with children outside the claim, as could affect their ability afford contact visits or provide informal financial support.

Support needs

The main type of support needed by NRP participants was mental health, and financial support, which some participants felt they would have benefitted from around the point of separation.

Where capability was a barrier to making an arrangement, NRP participants believed that mental health support may have helped them to manage illnesses or addictions that were preventing them from making a maintenance agreement. For NRP participants who said affordability was the main barrier, financial support was seen as essential in being able to set up and contribute to a maintenance arrangement.

NRP, Male, said:

Like there’s no advice. There’s no like, nobody says to you, at any point. talk to this person about this. Or if you need help with maintenance, talk to these people on this number. It was basically a case of okay. …you’re basically disabled. Have a nice day…There’s no centre goes well; you like we can help you get yourself sorted we will give you this is where you need to go for this. This is where you need to go for that we will help you fill out these forms… There isn’t really a place for that.

Where motivation or opportunity were barriers to making an arrangement, some NRP participants felt that mediation may have helped, especially where conflict with the PWC was a key issue that prevented discussions about money. However, court mediation was considered unaffordable by many of the NRP participants who were aware of and had considered using the service. In addition, some participants felt apprehensive about involving a third party in their lives in this way, even if they felt there may be some benefit in doing so.

There was also an appetite for financial advice, especially for NRP participants who had set up family-based arrangements and then regretted these, believing that the money had not been spent as intended. They would have liked general advice about managing finances at the point of relationship breakdown, and clearer guidance around appropriate child maintenance.

NRP, Male, said:

I thought I was doing the right thing [providing informal support]. Looking back now, I should have phoned CMS myself. But at the time I just wanted to make sure that my son was getting what he needed.

In addition to the support needs identified by NRPs themselves, there was evidence that some NRPs may benefit from clearer guidance about what financial support is for and how they may expect it to be used by the PWC. For instance, some of those NRPs that were sceptical about how PWCs would spend contributions struggled to see beyond the money being for clear, physical items for the children.

Improved financial literacy and guidance to demonstrate how contributions may be used to support a child through their overall environment, such as housing costs, or other household expenditure could be very helpful. This may be of benefit particularly where there is conflict or mistrust in the relationship between PWC and NRP.

6. Conclusions

6.1 Participant backgrounds

The personal and financial situations of separated parents were important factors in decision making around setting up a financial arrangement. For both Parents with Care (PWC) and Non-resident Parents (NRP) the reason for the relationship ending, and the quality of the relationship after separation were key to their feelings about whether a financial arrangement would be feasible or desirable.

Important factors here were whether the relationship had involved domestic abuse, and the level of contact the NRP had with the child, or children, after the separation. PWCs who were survivors of domestic abuse prioritised the physical and emotional psychological safety of themselves and their children. NRPs often linked their feelings about financial contributions to contact with their children, either feeling that they already contributed a lot through ad hoc financial support and wider care, or that they should not be required to pay if they felt the PWC was preventing contact.

Views of what constituted a ‘financial support arrangement’ varied but most agreed that an arrangement suggested regular financial contributions, and many also felt the term suggested a formal arrangement via CMS.

Insights from Parents with Care

PWC participants typically prioritised stability and safety of relationships above financial support. Those who felt they had a good parenting relationship with the NRP did not want to jeopardise this by raising the subject of financial maintenance, particularly if they perceived they would not receive much due to the NRP’s income. PWCs who described having negative relationships with the NRP, either due to abuse, or wider conflict after separating often feared making the situation worse if they pursued a financial arrangement.

Feelings about how seeking financial maintenance might affect these fragile truces or hostile relationships were carefully considered alongside the potential financial benefit, or how likely the NRP would be to honour any arrangement made. Overall, many PWC’s found that the potential risks outweighed the likely benefits and so took no action.

PWC participants also identified specific barriers to putting a financial arrangement in place. Capability barriers included lack of awareness of their entitlements and the support available to claim them, as well as not being able to contact the NRP to discuss an arrangement.

Motivation barriers included concerns about how seeking a financial arrangement could affect their relationship with the NRP, or the NRP’s relationship with the child, or children. PWC participants were also reluctant to give NRP’s any type of power of them by asking them for money. They were also perceptions that CMS would not be able to enforce NRPs who do not pay, meaning that they could be taking risks with no real benefit.

Opportunity barriers centred on fears of jeopardising their safety, in cases of domestic abuse, and perceptions that the NRP would be uncooperative with setting up an arrangement or would simply refuse to pay. Others simply felt that there was no money for the NRP to give, or that income would be hidden, and so seeking an arrangement would be pointless. These views were sometimes based on personal experiences of PWCs who had made a claim via CMS which had either not led to an arrangement or had led to one which was not honoured by the NRP or successfully enforced by CMS.

Overall, awareness of support provided by CMS, or other services was low and PWC participant often described themselves as not being able to seek support at a time of significant stress and upheaval in their lives. They felt they would benefit from greater awareness of the parental responsibility, entitlements and where to go for support, which could be provided at key milestones including pregnancy, birth and at the point of separation.

More widely, PWC participants who described having high conflict relationships with the NRP said they would benefit with support in managing relationships, for example via mediation. Survivors of domestic abuse could benefit from information about how they can seek a financial arrangement while protecting their physical and psychological safety. Finally, male PWCs felt excluded in current communications and services, which they perceived existed for mothers with care, rather than fathers.

Insights from Non-resident Parents

Participants who were Non-resident Parents (NRPs) discussed affordability to provide regular financial contributions as the key barrier to setting up an arrangement. The inability to pay maintenance was the main capacity barrier discussed by NRPs with many saying they would not be able to afford their own essential living costs if they did pay. Others said they even if they could afford to pay, they would not be able to as they had no contact with the PWC, for example due to a legal injunction in place because of domestic abuse.

There were also significant motivation barriers for NRP participants in setting up financial arrangements. While participants typically described themselves as being willing to financially support their children, their feelings about the PWC, or perceptions about whether the PWC was frustrating contact with the children often acted as barriers. Willingness to provide financial support for their children was often tied to contact with them, with some NRPs saying they were not willing to pay if they did not feel they had enough involvement in their child’s life.

There were also some NRP participants who said they did not feel they were responsible for providing any financial support either because they were currently or had been the PWC for children from the relationship. Others felt that they contributed in other ways including caring for the children, helping around the house or making ad hoc contributions, either to the PWC or directly to the children.

NRP participants also raised concerns about how the PWC might use any financial contribution and be unwilling to pay if they believed the whole amount would not go to the child, or children it was intended for.

Awareness and experiences of CMS and other types of support was low and generally negative. While some NRPs with previous experience of CMS said they felt positively about the service, others reported negative experiences, either personal ones or those of friends and family. NRPs who had no experience of CMS assumed the system would be punitive and were reluctant to engage with it.

The main type of support needed by NRP participants was mental health, and financial support or advice, which some participants felt they would have benefitted from around the point of separation. There was also some desire for mediation services, although perceptions of these were mixed, with some believing them to be too expensive, and others being unwilling to involve a third party in their personal life.

7. Appendix – Detailed sample tables

7.1 Table 1 – Key sub-groups

Parent sub-group	Parents with Care (PWC) achieved interviews	Non-resident Parents (NRP) achieved interviews
No arrangement in place – motivated to change	7	3
No arrangement in place – not motivated to change	6	7
Non-financial arrangement in place – motivated to change	7	2
Non-financial arrangement in place – not motivated to change	4	4

7.2 Table 2 – Soft, non-interlocking quotas

Gender

Gender	Achieved interviews
Male	19
Female	21

Age

Age	Achieved interviews
Under 30	8
30 to 39	11
40 to 49	14
50+	7

Income

Income	Achieved interviews
Under £10,000	11
£10,000 to £19,999	15
£20,000 to £29,999	4
£30,000+	6
Don’t know	4

Length of separation from the other parent

Length of separation from the other parent	Achieved interviews
Less than 5 years	12
5 to 10 years	16
10+ years	12

Length of relationship

Length of relationship	Achieved interviews
Less than 5 years	12
5 to 10 years	16
10+ years	12

Age of child

Age of child	Achieved interviews
Under 5	7
5 to 9	12
10 to 15	13
16+	8

Relationship with someone else

Relationship with someone else	Achieved interviews
Yes	14
No	26

Disability/ long term condition

Disability/ long term condition	Achieved interviews
Yes	20
No	20