PHONE A FAMILY LAWYER

This is going to make me sound somewhat old, but in the days before the Child Support Agency it was common for me to act on behalf of clients seeking or defending affiliation orders, in an effort to establish paternity of a child. At the time, analysis was based on blood compatibility tests as opposed to DNA testing as is the case now. The reports giving the results of the blood tests were generally expressed in such a way that the likelihood of a defendant being the father of the child was given on a percentage basis. It always struck me as strange when a woman insisted she had only had one partner to be given results that virtually excluded him from paternity, and likewise for a man to insist he could not be the father on the basis of a relationship that consisted of little more than a one-night stand, only for the results to be weighted to the contrary.

Indeed once upon a time I recall having to tell one young man that regrettably the outcome of the tests suggested that the odds on successfully refuting paternity were stacked against him. He was downcast to hear this but then immediately pepped up when he read the report which confirmed that on the basis of the samples analysed only 0.07% of men could be the father of the child and he fell into that 0.07%.

“Double O, Seven,” he read out aloud. “From now on,” he exclaimed with a smile on his face, “I shall call myself James Bond.”

All of these stories came back to me when I received a call this morning. It was Outdoor Man.

“We have a problem, Jude,” he said. “One of the Roborowski Brothers isn’t a brother after all and it’s given birth, but we can’t work out which one’s the mother, or the father for that matter. Apprentice Man and I are just off now for our weekend of sailing and you’ll need to deal with it!”

Obviously I was slightly bemused but totally unclear what I was meant to do about the situation from my office desk.

“We just thought as a family lawyer, you’d know what to do.”

Does anyone offer DNA testing for hamsters?

DRACONIAN CHILD SUPPORT MEASURES

As the Government’s Welfare Reform Bill is debated in Parliament, Resolution is calling for an urgent rethink on draconian punitive measures on child support.

The Bill gives powers to civil servants to confiscate the driving licence or passport of individuals who they believe are behind with their child maintenance payments without the need to obtain a Court Order.

Chair of Resolution’s Child Support committee Kim Fellowes said: “We agree with the government’s aim that all parents meet their pastoral and financial responsibilities toward their children. However it is well known that the administration of child support in this country is riddled with errors and bureaucratic failures. Until the system is fixed, running smoothly and has public confidence there can be no justification for not allowing a right to challenge such draconian measures in the courts. This measure was rejected by Parliament when the Government tried to include it in a review of the child support system last year. It is incredible that they are now seeking to reintroduce it in the context of a new Bill entirely, and we urge them to reconsider.”

CHILD MAINTENANCE BILL

MPs debated the new Child Maintenance Bill for the first time in Parliament today, and Resolution is lobbying for parents to be allowed to take their own enforcement action.
The Government created a system where the only way to enforce child maintenance was via the Child Support Agency (“the CSA”) – the result is a debt mountain of £3.5 billion in uncollected maintenance.
The Government is promoting voluntary agreements between parents for child maintenance to avoid overload on its proposed new version of the CSA, C-MEC. Resolution says there will have to be a large number of voluntary agreements if C-MEC is not to be overwhelmed.
Yet the Government is not proposing that such arrangements will be enforceable. So couples unable to agree or enforce a voluntary arrangement will still have to go through C-MEC.
If the Government is serious about empowering parents and reducing the burden on C-MEC, they should ensure that those who choose to are free to use the court process to enforce their own maintenance arrangements.
Where the Courts are already examining the minutiae of a family’s finances for the purposes of divorce, the most cost effective and practical course would be to enable them to cover arrangements for child support payments too.