Key Facts
- •Judicial review claim brought by three single parent families and an adult child, challenging the Child Maintenance Service's (CMS) failure to collect and enforce child maintenance payments.
- •Claimants allege persistent failures by the CMS, leading to thousands of pounds in unpaid maintenance and claiming this constitutes economic abuse.
- •Claimants are single mothers experiencing domestic abuse from their children's fathers.
- •The case involves both a challenge to CMS policies and practices and individual case failures.
- •The 2023 Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Act, not yet in force, introduces changes to the system.
- •The court considers the Callan Report's recommendations for improvements in handling domestic abuse cases.
- •The court examines the statutory framework of the Child Support Act 1991, including direct pay and collect & pay systems.
- •The court reviews the CMS's guidance on determining 'unlikely to pay' and its relevance to domestic abuse situations.
Legal Principles
Common law duty of a father to maintain legitimate children, but no common law right to periodical child maintenance payments before the 1991 Act.
R (Kehoe) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2004] EWCA Civ 225
Child Support Act 1991 establishes a comprehensive scheme for assessing, collecting, and enforcing child maintenance, transferring responsibility from courts to the CMS.
Child Support Act 1991
The 1991 Act imposes a duty on the non-resident parent (NRP) to pay maintenance but does not confer a right on the parent with care (PWC) to enforce payment directly.
R (Kehoe) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2005] UKHL 48; Department of Social Security v Butler [1995] 1 WLR 1528
Article 8 ECHR imposes a positive obligation on the state to take protective measures in certain circumstances, but it does not extend to requiring financial benefits.
Kay v Lambeth London BC [2006] UKHL 10; R (SC) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2021] UKSC 26; R (JS) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2015] UKSC 16
Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR protects property rights, but the state's obligation is to ensure adequate legal protection and remedies, not necessarily to guarantee payment.
Kotov v Russia App. No. 54522/00, 3 April 2012 (GC)
Article 14 ECHR prohibits discrimination, requiring a showing of a difference in treatment based on an identifiable characteristic without objective and reasonable justification.
R (SC) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2021] UKSC 223
Padfield principle: a public body must not frustrate the purpose of the legislation it administers.
Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food [1968] AC 997
Outcomes
Claim dismissed.
The court found no systemic failings in CMS policies or practices that violated claimants' rights under Articles 8 and 1 Protocol 1 ECHR or constituted unlawful discrimination under Article 14 ECHR. While acknowledging individual cases with procedural missteps, the court held that these did not demonstrate a pattern of unlawful conduct. The claims were also largely out of time.