Child Maintenance Service

Kirith Entwistle Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the effectiveness of the Child Maintenance Service.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I declare an interest, as I am currently involved in a tribunal with the Department for Work and Pensions concerning my own child maintenance service case, which I will not refer to today.

I am bringing this motion before the House to highlight the urgent need for reform to the child maintenance service, particularly how it deals with post-separation abuse. What should be a system designed to support children is, in reality, too often used by perpetrators as a means of continuing both psychological and economic control and abuse.

For many victim-survivors of domestic abuse, leaving a relationship is the hardest step they will ever take, particularly when children are involved. It is a moment of courage, relief and when they hope the worst is finally behind them. What too many discover is that the abuse does not end when they leave; it simply changes form. Again and again, I hear from survivors who tell me the same thing: the child maintenance service has just become another arena in which the abuse can continue.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

My constituent Megan contacted me to say that she has escaped from her abusive former partner, who is supposed to be contributing less than £1 a day towards their child’s needs, but is not even managing that, although he does have influence over key decisions such as schooling and where they live. The domestic abuse is therefore still persisting, even though she has left her former partner. The child maintenance service is being weaponised against victims. Does my hon. Friend agree that we have a clear responsibility to help people such as my constituent Megan and her child?

[Kirith Entwistle]

That is exactly why this debate matters. I will come on to some of the points my hon. Friend raised.

When a public service not only allows, but actively facilitates, the continuation of abuse and fails to recognise the realities of coercive control, it is not just flawed; it is unjust. The national evidence is deeply concerning. Research by Gingerbread, a charity supporting single-parent families, found that 77% of primary carers using the CMS reported experiencing domestic abuse from the other parent.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing the debate. This is a massive issue in my constituency, as it is in hers. In Northern Ireland, a large proportion of parents relying on the CMS face difficulties in receiving timely maintenance, which directly impacts child poverty and family stability. Does she agree that there may be a lack of staff, and that to ensure that the CMS system operates effectively for families not just in her constituency, but in Northern Ireland, more needs to be done to reduce the backlogs and secure the financial support that their children are entitled to?

[Kirith Entwistle]

Absolutely.

Even more troubling is that 45% of the parents in that research said that the CMS’s involvement had actually led to an increase in abusive behaviour. Those figures should stop us in our tracks.

For survivors, the very experience of using the CMS can be deeply distressing. From the cold tone of emails and letters to the aggressive and harsh text messages, right through to the opaque way payments are calculated, the process can be deeply triggering for those who have experienced abuse. At the very beginning, survivors are asked whether they have experienced abuse and what form that abuse took. For a moment, there is hope that the system might understand the gravity of that disclosure, but what follows is often little more than signposting to a list of organisations before the process simply continues as though the question had never been asked.

Ultimately, the disclosure changes nothing. There is no meaningful change in how the case is handled, no structural safeguards and no recognition that the dynamics of abuse may shape the entire case. Crucially, it does nothing to change the tone of communications with the CMS. For someone who has taken enormous personal risk to leave an abusive partner, that can feel like jumping out of a plane only to find that there is no parachute, no safe landing and no one to catch them when they fall.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

My team has been absolutely inundated with child maintenance service casework. I agree with the hon. Member’s point about the faceless nature of the service and how unhelpful—in fact, damaging—that is to people who have been subject to domestic abuse.

Some constituents’ cases show a clear and worrying pattern of one parent’s evidence being approved when there is clear evidence on the other side that it is a lie, to use rather frank terms. There are some accounts from constituents who have been driven to suicidal ideation because of the shambles of the system, so I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this matter today.

[Kirith Entwistle]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. I will come on to that issue shortly.

Surely we must ask whether this is really the standard we are willing to accept. Another fundamental weakness lies in how the CMS deals with shared care, in that it absolutely fails to do so. In theory, maintenance calculations are meant to reflect the number of nights a child spends with each parent; in reality, the system largely relies on what parents report themselves. Rather than establishing the reality of shared care, the number of nights is effectively averaged out based on those reports, with no evidence required. When parents try to push back and provide evidence, that is often disregarded unless a court order is in place.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. As a child of divorced parents way before the CMS came into existence, I know that the whole issue of how much the paying parent should pay and getting them to pay on time is extremely stressful—for the children as well.

My hon. Friend raised good points about child maintenance being routinely weaponised. Collect and pay may help lots of families by making it harder for abusers to withhold payment, but I know from my caseload that many parents say that income is being hidden and that the CMS is allowing that income to be hidden—if a parent is self-employed or becomes a “director”, for example. Does she agree that the CMS must be equipped to find that hidden income?

[Kirith Entwistle]

My hon. Friend raises a particularly important point. I will come on to the collect and pay service and how that is also broken.

The result of how the CMS deals with shared care is a system that accepts unverified claims, but refuses genuine evidence. It is confusing, adversarial and often deeply unfair. The structure of the CMS also creates the wrong incentives. When maintenance calculations change depending on the number of nights a child spends with each parent, disputes over care arrangements quickly become disputes over money. Fortalice, a leading domestic abuse charity in my town of Bolton, is all too aware of that problem. It tells me of cases where a parent seeks increased overnight contact—not because that is in the child’s best interests, but to reduce their CMS payments or claim additional financial support. Children should never become bargaining chips in financial disputes.

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. We are all here because we have been inundated with issues and complaints about the CMS. One of the things I hear about over and over again is the lack of communication. Does the hon. Member agree that if the CMS got the communication right, some of these disputes might not escalate to the point where they become very troublesome indeed?

[Kirith Entwistle]

As I mentioned earlier, there is a big issue with how the CMS communicates with both parents.

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

We have all received casework on this subject. I often find that what I can only term incompetence by the CMS enables non-resident parents to shirk financial responsibility—at the expense of the child, at the end of the day. Does my hon. Friend agree that we in Government must look into these issues and take decisive action to ensure that the CMS is fit for purpose, gets a grip and actually does the job we are asking it to do?

[Kirith Entwistle]

I completely agree. These issues are not theoretical; I see them repeatedly in cases raised by my own constituents in Bolton. One constituent, who I will call Emily, left an abusive relationship and is still dealing with the consequences through the CMS. She describes intimidation and harassment from the father of her children, alongside unreliable maintenance payments. Money arrives late, arrives short or does not arrive at all. Her case remains on direct pay, meaning that the system still relies on co-operation between parents, even when there is a history of abuse. For many survivors, that is not a neutral arrangement: it can mean ongoing contact with the person they are trying to escape and persistent fear about what will happen if they challenge missing payments.

Emily has repeatedly asked for her case to be moved to collect and pay, so that payments can be handled through the CMS without that direct interaction, yet delays, missed call-backs and poor communication have left her stuck in a process that exposes her to distress and financial uncertainty. Other frontline charities in Bolton, such as Endeavour, tell me that they see that pattern all too regularly. Survivors describe payments being withheld, not because the other parent cannot afford to pay but because that unpredictability becomes a form of control. Many report that payments stop just before birthdays, Christmas or school holidays, only to restart later. That pattern is not random; it is about maintaining power. Survivors tell us that they feel trapped by the CMS, and we absolutely must listen.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

One of my constituents has raised this issue with me; she is owed nearly £6,000. She says:

“What makes me most mad is if he paid, I wouldn’t need UC to top up my wages. The government is paying twice, once for chasing him and once for covering him.”

Is the system not completely broken?

[Kirith Entwistle]

That is such a powerful point, and I am really sorry on behalf of my hon. Friend’s constituent. Sadly, that is not an isolated case.

Some say that they are asked to pay far more than they can afford, while others say that the support they receive does not come close to covering the cost of raising their children. When they try to seek clarification, they hit another problem with the CMS: inconsistency. Different advisers give different answers, and staff are working from guidance rather than clear, consistent rules. As a result, parents can end up receiving conflicting advice from the very organisation that is meant to support them and their children through a difficult time.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for being so brave in introducing this debate; many of us have dealt with this issue on a daily basis.

There is an issue of fairness in the allocation of the rules. I had one father who tried to kill himself because he felt that there was no allocation of fairness in what he was trying to do for his family. The rules do not seem to be clear cut, and there does not seem to be a way through for families who want to work together. The system seems to disproportionately favour the spouse who is willing to lie and say things about the other, and that has to change. It is just not sustainable.

[Kirith Entwistle]

Absolutely. The system is fundamentally broken. Children must be at the heart of any decision made about them. It is important to recognise that many parents, particularly single mothers, who have experienced abuse do not use the CMS at all. They avoid it because engaging with the system may mean renewed contact with the very person they are trying to escape. They do not see the CMS as protection, but merely as another channel through which a perpetrator can exert control.

[Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case for the reform of the CMS. My constituent has been hounded by her ex-partner, with eight consecutive investigations by the CMS triggered by his complaints about her. It has ultimately caused her to give up work. Does my hon. Friend agree that vexatious complaints such as those must be identified and prevented from taking up CMS resources and allowing the continuation of financial abuse?

[Kirith Entwistle]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend raises yet another issue with the CMS and highlights just how badly the system is set up.

Mothers struggle on alone, absorbing financial pressure themselves rather than risking opening the door to further abuse. That should deeply concern this House. We must remember what is at stake. Child maintenance exists for one reason: to support the quality of life and wellbeing of children. Yet the experiences that we have all described suggest that children are being drawn into adult conflict, rather than being protected and shielded from it.

In the worst cases, the CMS allows children to be weaponised by perpetrators; I can make no stronger point than that. How can we possibly continue with a service that allows that to happen—a service that effectively tells perpetrators that more overnight contact may mean lower maintenance payments; a service where the amount paid can be disputed, delayed or manipulated because the rules are unclear; a service where weak enforcement allows some parents to evade their responsibilities altogether; and a service that some survivors avoid entirely because it does not feel safe?

Campaigning organisations, such as Gingerbread, have already set out practical proposals for change, and I would be grateful if the Minister could address three areas where the system must work better for survivors and their children. First, we need a genuinely child-centred approach to maintenance so that decisions about contact and payments are driven by children’s wellbeing, rather than financial incentives. Secondly, disclosures of domestic abuse must trigger meaningful safeguards, not mere signposting or lip service. There must also be clearer evidential standards for shared care, particularly where no court order is in place. Finally, survivors should have better access to collect and pay alongside a named caseworker so they are not forced into ongoing contact with perpetrators or required to repeat traumatic experiences.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. Has she noticed that child maintenance payments are being stopped when an ex-partner applies for child benefit? That is another source of income that is being manipulated by a partner to keep the money from the parent who is looking after the children.

[Kirith Entwistle]

Absolutely; it is just another vehicle being used by perpetrators to continue that post-separation abuse.

At its heart, this debate is about the lives of children growing up in separated families across the country. The child maintenance service was created with the intention of supporting those children, but when the system allows post-separation abuse to continue, when it leaves survivors feeling unheard and unsafe, and when children are drawn into that harm, it is clear that reform is urgently needed. The question we must ask ourselves is simple: can we honestly continue with a system that allows children to be weaponised by perpetrators of abuse? I do not believe that we can.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

I will call Vikki Slade, but I want to hear from the Minister because this is an important debate. I am going to restrict the hon. Lady to two minutes.