Categories: uncategorized
Date: 21 June 2011 09:34:15
Polly Toybee has written an insightful article in the Guardian which highlights how the Welfare Reform Bill, which recently went through the commons, includes a requirement for people to pay a £100 up front fee to use the CSA to collect maitence payments and will then take a percentage of money collected. She explains how Cameron is using Double Speak in relation to single parents, (see this post for my initial comments on his article last Sunday).
Gingerbread, the main UK charity which acts as an advocate for single parents, has information on and a campaign against these changes.
Things change, but it appears in this country we have moved from one extreme to another. I remember in the late 1990's when I had to use all my middle class language skills and education to stop the CSA getting involved, believing that in my situation it would have made things worse not better. Now it appears we are actively trying to stop CSA involvement and punish parents who have no option but to use it.
In this article I am going to outline the conditions that made our informal agreement work, but why those reasons are exactly why some people need support from an organisation like the CSA. I am also, without going into too much detail about my own situation, going to use some of my story to explain why the CSA fee and contributions are an unrealistic expectation for many single parents.
When I split up with my husband we were determined it would be civillised and not like other splits we'd seen. Thus, we continued speaking all the way through. This meant that discussions about money were possible and both of us were prepared to be "reasonable". In many situations this level of "reasonableness" is not possible for a host of reasons. The expectation that it will be and we will all behave like "gentlemen" is unrealistic and for many people impossible. This is often because of the issues which have led to the breakdown of the relationship. Again, as was the case within the article, Cameron seems not to understand the realities of situations which lead to breakdowns in relationship.
The use of lawyers and third parties was kept to a minimum. In our situation I made one visit (and because the law was different then refused to say I wanted to name the other party on the divorce papers although I knew who she was). The use of third parties in some cases is useful, but in many other cases I've seen it can increase resentment and further lead to the likelyhood of informal agreements less not more likely.
I was reasonable in my requests to up the maitenence at various points in Third Party's life but did not push it too far or too often. This question of how to up it over the years in line with the changing circumstances is difficult. It was probably the most thorny issue we faced.
We did not have the issue of me living with another partner and the questions that might have raised regarding Third Party's father's contribution. For many people that is not the case.
To be honest I think the whole thing has worked in our situation partly because we wanted to be counter cultural and on my end there were times I decided not to push it. I'm no saint but I am not sure that everybody has it within them, particularly if their circumstances give more resentment and they have not been able to forgive, to act in the "laid back" way I have about it all. For the same reasons I am not sure that everybody has it within them to act in the responsible and reasonable way Third Party's dad had. Besides the communication it worked in large part because nobody had any particularly resentful feelings against the other.
In terms of the up front fee I had to stop myself from laughing. £100 - let us put that in context for the single parent, by looking at what £100 has meant in my situation. I am going to look at this in stages, when Third Party was at various ages. But throughout it has been about one quarter of my rent - or under that fraction and I have only sporadically, as my circumstances dictated been on housing benefit and had help towards that rent. For alot of Third Party's life I have been working and not on housing benefit. When I have been working, and indeed studying, I have needed to pay travel costs - again this takes money which cannot be spent twice.
Third Party age 3 (when the split first happened):
£100 would have gone towards the mortgage arrears I had.
It would have paid a months childcare fees - which I struggled with constantly.
£40 would have gone on electric and some of the rest on food.
If I really had been able to spare £100 I would have done a shop where I could forget about what was on special offer and buy the food I really wanted to or the "nice" toilet roll. In reality I would have probably splashed out on the haircut and shoes I needed.
Third Party aged 5
£100 would have covered the school uniform - without the need to resort to asking parents for help.
£100 would have as usual gone towards paying off the debts I had.
£100 would have again meant a nice shop and some extra clothes or toys for Third Party. It might have made a small holiday possible without it having to be my mum paying for me to go to Spring Harvest.
When Third Party was around the age of 8 or 9 I got a tax refund which meant I did have a little bit extra - the only time I would have been able to afford the up front fee. With that money I purchased a new washing machine and took Third Party to Euro Disney, aswell as paying off some of my debts. I also gave my mum some money towards her vari-focals, glasses she needed but couldn't really afford because she had been helping support me and her grand-daughter out of her wages. That was our one holiday outside the UK.
Third Party aged 11.
£100 would have meant I could have afforded all the school uniform myself and Third Party might have ended up with more fashionable stuff, lessening the chance of bullying.
I could go on but I won't. Sufficient to say that I mostly worked, for part of the time I had a good job and was getting regular payments from Third Party's dad as well as odd bits from others and I struggled. I did not live a feckless lifestyle. The majority of our furniture was second or third hand and we only went on cheap holidays once a year - mainly to Christian events where the entertainment was included. We struggled and £100 plus reduced payments because of the fees involved would have been impossible for us.
I think it is clear that Mr. Cameron and his advisors are living in a utopian dream world which does not understand the financial realities for many families - of whatever size. What is worse I think amongst them there is no malicious intent or real understanding of the hardship they will cause because they seem to have a hegemonic patriarchal view that the world is as they and their friends know it.
I understand why the government thinks it is "reasonable" to charge for this service - but in practice it is not. Families (of different sizes and shapes) are going to suffer as a result and parents and children will find themselves going without even more. In this situation one of the largest groups to suffer will be "the poor middle class" who are often invisible in our society - but do exist, particularly amongst public sector employees who are finding themselves being kicked by this government from other directions.