The Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland
October 2025
Established by the Commissioner for Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2003, the Commissioner is responsible for promoting and safeguarding the rights of all children and young people in Scotland, giving particular attention to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). The Commissioner has powers to review law, policy and practice and to take action to promote and protect rights. The Commissioner is fully independent of the Scottish Government.
Questions –
- To what extent has safeguarding been considered in the design and delivery of the Child Maintenance Service (CMS)? How might a systems-based approach to safeguarding support the CMS and people who use it?
We hold concern around safeguarding within the current system for parents (primarily women) and their children experiencing domestic abuse. We also hold concern surrounding the ability of the system to protect children experiencing poverty. We believe that a great deal would need to change to ensure that these families were sufficiently protected in the implementation of the new system.
In 2012 the CMS was reformed, moving away from statutory arrangements, and towards a system which aimed at promoting families to make their own financial arrangements for child maintenance and only stepping in when these broke down. These private arrangements are called Family Based Agreements (FBAs). Families who require intervention are charged fees. This was a system driven by austerity and cutting costs and not by what was best for families claiming child maintenance and most importantly not for children. UK wide figures show that since these reforms came into force the number of families without a maintenance arrangement rose substantially – from around 600,000 in 2012 to more than a million.[1]
We support calls from organisations working in the sector, such as One Parent Families Scotland and Fife Gingerbread, to overhaul and reform the system.[2] The emphasis on family- based arrangements has disadvantaged women and children experiencing domestic abuse –and in some cases allowed for continued financial abuse.
We also have concerns that the emphasis on family- based arrangements means that children are not sufficiently protected from poverty. Many children who could be receiving child maintenance are not. Single parent families already experience higher rates of poverty. In 2022/23, 44% of children living with one adult were in poverty, versus 25% of children living with two adults.[3] A proper functioning child maintenance service would help reduce this, One Parent Families Scotland highlight that where CMS arrangements are in place, they make a 10% difference to improving child poverty rates from 40% to 30%. The IPPR found that child maintenance reduces the number of children in poverty by 140,000.[4] Poverty has serious impacts on a child’s development and prospects, the system needs to be redesigned in a way that supports all children.
Reform of the Child Maintenance Service should be framed in a child’s rights compliant way and in line with the UNCRC requirements. Article 18 of the UNCRC states that children should be supported by both parents and if they live with only one parent, the other should provide them with support. The Government has a duty to assist parents to do this. Article 26 states that Governments should provide children and young people with financial support where their parents or guardians do not have enough to meet their needs. Article 26 could be justification to support the principle of removing fees from the CMS service and highlights the need for a properly resourced benefits system – these should work together to combat child poverty.
- Are there any changes that could be made to the CMS to make the system less adversarial for parents?
We agree with the proposals that have been set out by One Parent Families Scotland – they have recently worked with other organisations in Scotland and directly with families to compile a list of recommendations. We understand their full report is due for publication later this month and that they are in contact with the Minister regarding their findings.
Broadly speaking we feel the new system should –
- Prioritise statutory arrangements as the norm and not see these as stigmatising. There are several issues with the use of FBAs and the use of Direct Pay. FBAs are not subject to a formula, and it can be agreed that a parent pays less than what they would under statutory arrangements. The use of Direct Pay has meant that significant amounts of child maintenance go unpaid.
The use of statutory arrangements where a formula is used and the receiving parent does not have to rely on the other to pay them would offer better protections. This could also reduce conflict and the effects of coercive control and financial abuse. The statutory system should not only step in when family arrangements have broken down, this is a flawed approach that is leaving many children at risk of poverty.
There should be some flexibility in the system to allow parents to pay more than the formula allows for – the use of the suggested Child Maintenance Platform (by One Parent Families Scotland) would allow for this flexibility.
- Remove all fees that function as a ‘child maintenance tax’. The Government are obliged to support families under Article 26, the use of fees put further pressure on those experiencing poverty.
- Robust and trauma informed training for staff on domestic abuse and supporting these claimants.
- The service offering better support and enforcement. Many parents report poor service and limited understanding of the systems. There also needs to be proper and effective enforcement when parents do not pay. The use of named caseworkers could be of benefit here.
One of the most important principles of the current system, which should remain at all costs, is the principle that receipt of child maintenance does not affect benefit entitlement. Child maintenance and social security should be kept separate, this is an important anti-poverty measure.
- How can parents be supported to reach and adhere to Family-based agreements?
We agree with One Parent Families Scotland that having a statutory based payment system would better serve children. This would reduce stigma and helps in situations with domestic abuse or conflict.
Family based agreements can deviate from the statutory formula – this means a paying parent can agree to pay less. This is unworkable in domestic abuse cases.
- If and when a child maintenance agreement breaks down between parents, how might they be supported to find a resolution?
It has been reported by parents that the current system can exacerbate conflict. We are supportive of moving away from family-based agreements and having a statutory based payment system. This removes the need for agreement between parents and would serve to provide a system which means that the child maintenance which should be paid is paid.
Aside from this better training for case workers and better support services, especially when there is domestic abuse and coercion involved.
- How adequate is the support provided by the CMS to Paying Parent, Receiving Parents, and victims of domestic abuse? How could this be improved?
As we have stated above – we have significant concerns regarding the levels of support provided by the CMS to parents and children experiencing domestic abuse. Parents have reported that the service is inadequately equipped to deal with cases of domestic abuse.[5] Parents reported that the staff had limited understanding of situations where ‘no contact orders’ were in place and limited understanding of cultural contexts.
There has been a decrease in the number of agreements being in place, so some children are simply not receiving the support they are entitled to and there are reports of limited support when relationships break down.
- Is the Government’s current approach to calculating Child Maintenance rates appropriate? How should child maintenance rates be calculated?
Our main concerns sit with the ability of the system to ensure that the money which is due to be paid by a parent is received. We do note that there have been concerns raised by both paying and receiving parents that the current formula is out of date and can create conflict itself.
- What are the benefits and drawbacks of the Government’s plans to remove Direct Pay arrangements?
The benefits of removing direct pay arrangements mean that the pressure of making payments and enforcing the payments is removed from parents – this could result in a more efficient system. Direct Pay has meant that many parents who should be in receipt of child maintenance do not receive this, this can be used by domestic abusers to control their victims.
If the system moves to Collect and Pay as standard, then the use of fees should be removed. Under Collect and Pay, paying parents are charged a 20% additional surcharge, and payments to receiving parents are deducted by 4%. We view this as unfair and adding additional fees to parents experiencing poverty.
- What support will parents who move from Direct Pay to Collect and Pay require, to enable a smooth transition?
The removal of fees and access to adequate support services.
- What are the benefits and drawbacks of the Government’s plans to charge a 20% fee for non-compliant parents?
The preferred approach would be to have a system not reliant on fees – if money is being taken from parents experiencing poverty this will not help their situation.
- Are there any groups of parents who find it particularly difficult to interact with the CMS? For which parents is the system not working?
Parents experiencing domestic abuse.
[1] Delivering for children: Why child maintenance needs urgent reform | IPPR
[2] OPFS_Child_Maintenance_Report_1.pdf
[3] OPFS_Child_Maintenance_Report_1.pdf
[4] Delivering for children: Why child maintenance needs urgent reform | IPPR