In recent years, child support has taken on major significance to governments in other Commonwealth countries and the United States in response to a number of factors including increased government spending on social assistance programs, court backlog and a growing number of unrepresented parties attending court on their own behalf. Child support guidelines have existed for several years in these other jurisdictions.

Whereas some places have incorporated the guideline application into the existing court processes, other jurisdictions have established elaborate administrative processes to process child support cases when certain qualifying criteria are met. In most jurisdictions, the courts still exercise primary authority over family law and continue to make child support orders in many situations. In other jurisdictions, the administrative systems have taken on a more wide-ranging role in regard to child support. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the administrative child support scheme has entirely replaced the function of the courts in this area.

Accordingly, there are many potential models and variations of those models in existence for both establishing and modifying child support. This report provides an overview of some of the predominant trends throughout jurisdictions where governments have moved some of the traditionally judicially based decision-making authority over to other forums designed to be more expeditious and less costly to the parties involved.

As much as possible, attempts have been made to highlight some of the advantages and disadvantages of some of the processes existing in other jurisdictions.

Part 1

The Administrative Child Support Schemes of the Commonwealth Countries

INTRODUCTION

The child support schemes operating in Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom have similar historical roots; however, there are also some variations worthy of comment. For instance, in the United Kingdom, the Child Support Agency operates as a semi-independent office of the Department of Social Security, and in both Australia and New Zealand, the tax offices administer child support when the courts are not involved.

The most pronouced difference between the United Kingdom on the one hand and New Zealand and Australia on the other is the continuing role of the court in the area of child support. In the United Kingdom, the legislation has virtually abolished the court's involvement in any basic assessment of child support - this responsibility has been legislatively assigned to the Child Support Agency. In New Zealand and Australia on the other hand, the court maintains a strong role in the administrative process, which includes conducting reviews of administrative decisions where requested by the parties. Therefore, in both Australia and New Zealand, the child support office coexists with the existing court processes.

In this regard, the United Kingdom scheme is much more comprehensive and complicated than are the more simple Australian and New Zealand child support processes. There are advantages and disadvantages to either approach. On the one hand, the United Kingdom agency has found it difficult to process child support assessments in an efficient and rapid manner. On the other hand, the simplified nature of the initial Australian and New Zealand schemes has meant that in many cases where the factors are somewhat more complex, the processes have been unable to deal with the issues and the case is eventually referred to court. The newly proposed departure processes in both of the latter countries have been designed to address some of these issues and are anticipated to provide agency personnel with increased scope for discretion.

The differences between the Australian and New Zealand systems include the fact that in Australia, the governing legislation leaves intact existing court-ordered arrangements for both child and spousal support established prior to 1989, whereas in New Zealand, the administrative process overrides many existing voluntary agreements and court orders. In addition, in Australia, the personal income of the custodial parent¹ is also factored into the formula for assessing how much the non-custodial parent will have to pay; in New Zealand, the custodial parent's income is not assessed. Finally, living allowances have been modified in New Zealand to provide for liable parents' new spouses and any stepchildren, whether they are financially dependent on the custodial parent or not.

AUSTRALIA

A. History of the Existing Scheme

The child support scheme currently operating in Australia dates back to 1988. The original goal of the system was to ensure that children receive proper support from parents capable of paying. Prior to 1988, the Family Law Act 1975 provided family judges and magistrates with the exclusive authority to make support orders in court. The orders were theoretically enforceable through the courts but were rarely acted upon; it was estimated that approximately two thirds of parents failed to pay the support they owed. The court processes were found to be overly lengthy and complicated and, thus, a disincentive for those persons seeking to have support orders enforced. Further, there was a blatant lack of any "objectively determined benchmark for assessing the amount to be paid."²

During the time leading up to 1988, two major studies were conducted and the resulting reports were instrumental in triggering large-scale reform in the area of child support. First, in 1979, the Family Law Council recommended an independent bureau for child support enforcement. Margaret Harrison reports that the 1986 Cabinet Subcommittee Discussion Paper on Child Maintenance identified "the need to strike a balance between public and private forms of support to alleviate the poverty of sole-parent families and to achieve some constraint on government outlays on sole-parent payments."³

In 1988, the Child Support Consultative Group proposed administrative assessment of child support.⁴ The goal of these first-stage recommendations was to improve payment and collection of child support. Three of the questions looked at by the government of the day were as follows:

where should the payments be collected and by whom?
should the child support scheme apply only to welfare recipients ("pensioners")?
should the scheme continue to utilize the court-based judicial assessments of child support levels or, rather, should support assessment be handled administratively?

In response to the first question, the government decided the Tax Office would be responsible for collecting payments. Second, not only welfare but all cases could be managed through the system upon request so as not to create a disincentive for leaving welfare. Because the court system was already extremely overburdened, the government opted for an administrative process of assessment.⁵

An explanation for the needed changes is that "widespread concern within the community for the economic distress of the majority of sole parents and their children ... led to calls for more effective measures to ensure both that payments [were] actually made and that the level of maintenance [bore] some resemblance to the costs borne by the custodian ... amendments [would ensure] that the first call for this support of children [was] placed on the parties themselves."⁶

B. The Child Support Scheme

The Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988

The first relevant legislative initiative in Australia occurred in 1988 with the enactment of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act.⁷ The primary features of this legislation were as follows:

the decision that the Commissioner of Taxation would also act as Child Support Registrar, and that this person would be responsible for administering the legislation and delegating powers to designated officers as appropriate;
the creation of a Child Support Register, which would contain information about child maintenance liabilities, in particular those administered by the courts or through agreements registered with the courts;
the power given to the Child Support Registrar to collect outstanding debts through automatic withholding of part of the liable parent's employment income if applicable;
the power given to the Child Support Registrar to distribute payments to the custodial parent; and
the provision for review of decisions.

In accordance with these legislative provisions, the Child Support Agency came into existence as a branch of the Taxation Office, responsible for registering and collecting child support debts. The Department of Social Security was involved in distributing the child support payments to custodial parents. The split between the two separate departments was premised on the idea that the Department of Social Security could most effectively deal with distributing payments, particularly to welfare recipients whose benefits would be directly affected by the receipt of child support payments. Moreover, the Taxation Office was seen to have the appropriate level of expertise for collecting money in an efficient manner.⁸

The Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989

The second noteworthy piece of legislation was the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989, which specifically provided for the administrative assessment of child support. The key contents of this act are as follows:

administrative assessment eligibility applies to all children born after October 1, 1989 or whose parents have separated after that date;
application for assessment is to be made through the Child Support Registrar;
the assessment is to be made in accordance with the prescribed formula;⁹
child support agreements, entered into by the two parents on their own behalf, can be registered with the registrar for collection purposes;
variation from the prescribed formula can be requested through application to the registrar and, if fairly complex, the case will be referred to the court for determination; and
certain people have the right to appeal the decisions of the registrar on certain grounds - specifically
1. a custodial parent can dispute a refusal to accept an application for assessment,
2. a liable parent can dispute an acceptance of an application for assessment,
3. either parent can dispute the amount of support assessed, or
4. either parent can dispute either the acceptance or nonacceptance of a pre-existing consent agreement.

The Process

The result of the 1989 legislation was the creation of a distinction between Stage One and Stage Two child support cases. The former category includes parents who separated and whose children were born before October 1, 1989. For these cases, the Family Law Act 1975 continues to apply and parents must go to court to have the issue of child support settled or to arrive at a consent agreement with the other parent. However, once the issue of child support has been established, through either means, the parent(s) can then choose to register the support order with the agency for administrative follow-up in regard to collection, modification and enforcement.¹⁰ Stage Two cases include parents with at least one child born after October 1, 1989, or those parents who separated after that date. In these circumstances, the Child Support Agency is responsible for both assessment and collection of support payments for both nuptial and ex-nuptial parents.¹¹ A consent agreement not registered with the agency is an exception to this general rule. In addition, the Family Law Act 1975 also continues to apply in more complicated circumstances including third parties requesting child support; non-custodial parents no longer resident in Australia; children requesting child support on their own behalf; requests for child support for children more than 18 years of age; and maintenance requests by stepparents.

In all other circumstances, however, the court is generally no longer involved in establishing child support for Stage Two cases. When there is a pending divorce, the judge will likely send the parents to court-annexed counselling or mediation services to discuss most of the issues surrounding the children and to discuss a workable "parenting plan"; however, child support is dealt with as an independent issue through the Child Support Agency and would be directed to that forum before the other outstanding issues would be resolved in the courtroom.

The Departure Scheme

In 1992, amendments to the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 incorporated into the Australian system the concept of "departure from administrative assessment of child support." Pursuant to these legislative provisions, either party can make written application to the registrar stating that special circumstances exist that support departing from the regular administrative assessment of child support. Currently, the average time before a departure order will be heard is approximately three months; however, the agency has plans to make the system more efficient through ensuring that measures are taken to support more complete information being considered at the outset of the process.

As in New Zealand, the registrar must be satisfied that it would be just and equitable and otherwise proper to depart from the formula¹² and, further, that at least one of the required grounds for departure exists. Those grounds, the same as those used by the court, are as follows:

the special circumstances of the case significantly reduce the capacity of either parent to provide financial support to the child because of
1. a duty to maintain another child or person,
2. the special needs of another person being maintained, or
3. the commitment necessary to support either oneself or another person to whom the parent owes a duty of support;
the special circumstances of the case significantly affect the costs of maintaining the child
1. because of the high costs of enabling a parent to have contact with the child or because of the special needs of the child, or
2. because the child is being cared for or educated in a manner expected by the parents; or
the special circumstances of the case would result in unjust and inequitable determination of the level of financial support from the liable parent, if the regular administrative assessment were applied.¹³

Varying a Child Support Order

Similar to the New Zealand system, the Australian system provides for a periodic reassessment of support, which is done on a yearly basis. Each year, the Child Support Agency looks at the taxable income of both the non-custodial and the custodial parent for the year before; the liability of the non-custodian will either increase or decrease in accordance with the newly calculated child support.

The only other way a person can apply to have a child support order varied is through the departure scheme discussed in the previous section of this report. There is no time limit for requesting a departure review. A person has the right to request a court appeal if dissatisfied with the outcome of the departure process.

As previously stated, the court no longer plays a part in establishing child support orders; however, it is possible that one of the parties might ask that the court look at varying an existing administrative order without first resorting to the departure scheme if there are other related issues contemporaneously being considered by the court. Conversely, for Stage One cases (i.e. a child support order existing prior to 1989), the court must vary the orders. The agency cannot do so.¹⁴

C. Evaluation of the Australian Scheme

There is some evidence that the Australian administrative system is more successfully getting child support payments to the custodial parent than the processes that existed before the system came into being. This statement is particularly apt in regard to those custodial parents who are relying on social assistance. Margaret Harrison of the Family Court of Australia reports:

The Department of Social Security has reported that in December 1992, 40 percent of the approximately 300,000 sole-parent pensioners [social assistance recipients] declared receipt of some child support, up from 26 percent in 1988. Savings of $108 million ... were obtained in that period from reduced [social assistance] payments to beneficiaries.¹⁵

Harrison further estimates that the vast majority of those persons using the administrative process are "sole-parent pensioners [of whom] 90 percent ... have no earned income."¹⁶ This figure suggests that many people not receiving social assistance are choosing to make their own arrangements privately rather than resorting to the Child Support Agency.

Child Support Agency statistics also indicate a large increase in collection of child support since the administrative scheme came into being; however, there is some question about the reliability of the findings of the studies conducted by the agency.¹⁷ When the administrative scheme was first set up, it was praised by some for the fact that the administrative support assessments were considerably higher than those determined through court orders. Now that the courts also make use of the agency formula to make assessments, the discrepancy is probably shrinking.¹⁸

The Australian scheme has been criticized on the basis that it is prospective, leaving intact all orders negotiated prior to 1989. Margaret Harrison observes:

The decision to make administrative assessment totally prospective has been criticized on the basis that it prejudices the financial welfare of children whose parents fall outside the requisite dates, combined with evidence that court-ordered or privately negotiated amounts are generally lower than those produced by the application of the formula.¹⁹

Harrison also identifies some other criticisms of the Australian scheme, which include alleged unfairness of the utilized percentages in relation to the actual cost of the children; failure to consider the children's ages; and failure to consider that, often, non-custodians are financially unable to "repartner or reparent once their child support obligations have been met."²⁰ In 1993, Parliament appointed the Joint Select Committee on Certain Family Law Issues to look at the operation and effectiveness of the child support scheme. The committee set out its criticisms in its 1994 report. In that report, the committee suggested the system was cumbersome, with potential for delay at each stage of the process.²¹ A related criticism centres on the fact that two separate departments are involved in administering the program - on the one hand, the Department of Social Security and, on the other, the Tax Office - and, often, the line of communication between the two departments is less than adequate, resulting in further delay and an element of confusion. Further, some commentators suggest the Tax Office, which is accustomed to collecting money from people, does not have the expertise to deal with the emotional aspects of child support; in other words, paying child support is not strictly a financial issue. There are always many factors involved, including the breakdown of a relationship and a desire to see one's children.

The administrative scheme has been set up in such a way that computer-generated letters are sent out to the parties. Many parents (particularly non-custodial parents) complain that the letters are offensive because, as M. Kingshott observed, "their form (usually a bald demand for arrears, without careful explanation of the reasons for the parent's liability, and their rights) is totally inappropriate, given the sensitive nature of the type of debt collected and its entanglement with emotional issues of relationship breakdown and access to children."²² The telephone system also used in the Australian scheme is no better in this regard. Fully automated, it does not provide people with the ability to make a quick phone call to request clarification about an aspect of the case.

D. Development of the Australian Scheme

General Administrative Reform

Having identified some of the shortcomings of the existing child support system, the Joint Select Committee on Certain Family Law Issues made some proposals for child support reform in its 1994 report. In regard to proposed child support reform, the committee's report contained 163 recommendations.²³ Among the recommendations were the following:

expand the Child Support Registrar's powers to include the ability to decide whether or not a support order should be varied if circumstances have changed substantially;
establish new review bodies to review the Child Support Registrar's decisions with further appeal to either the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or the courts - the committee's particular recommendations on this point include
1. amending the child support legislation to establish an internal objection procedure for administrative decisions and for departure from the formula assessment (recommendation 76),
2. amending the child support legislation to establish an external review office, the Child Support Appeals Office, to determine appeals by custodial parents or non-custodial parents (recommendation 77),
3. requiring the Minister Responsible for the Child Support Agency to appoint the appeal officers of the Child Support Appeals Office (recommendation 78),
4. requiring an appeal officer sitting alone to make the Child Support Appeals Office review decisions (recommendation 79),
5. publishing all review decisions of the Child Support Agency and the Child Support Appeals Office (recommendation 80),
6. amending relevant legislation to establish the Child Support Claims Tribunal within the Administrative Appeals Tribunal's registry (recommendation 81),
7. amending relevant legislation to enable an application for a review of a Child Support Appeals Office decision to be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and an appeal from the Child Support Appeals Office to be made to the Family Court of Australia for a point of law (recommendation 82), and
8. forbidding the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to charge a filing fee (recommendation 83);
introduce case officers with assigned responsibility and accountability to clients so as to avoid problems of staff anonymity and client confusion;
introduce a reference number system so as to ensure a higher level of feedback to clients and follow-up as needed on the files;
require staff to identify themselves to clients at all times unless there are identifiable safety concerns;
avoid the use of computer-generated responses to clients as much as possible;
review the registration process for court orders and court registered agreements because of an outstanding problem of court order applications rather than finalized orders being registered;
require family law magistrates to use a practice direction from the Family Court of Australia containing precedents for court order wording;
require the Child Support Registrar to automatically accept applications for child support;
require the liable parent to notify the Child Support Registrar of appeals to court and require the registrar to hold payments collected from the parent in trust;
require family court registrars to consider disputed parentage cases a priority;
give the Child Support Registrar the power to vary child support agreements where an order is inequitable or if the circumstances of either party changed sufficiently to justify the variance; and
implement changes both to the formula and to departure order criteria.²⁴

Reform to Bring Together Child Support and Other Family Law Issues

In addition, the committee also suggested that there be an increased focus on the interrelatedness of child support and other family law legislation. In order to achieve this goal, the committee recommended that

there be amendments passed to both the Family Law Act 1975 and the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 to ensure that any parenting plans including provisions about child support liability and child support agreements be capable of acceptance by the Child Support Registrar (recommendation 72);
there be an amendment to the Family Law Act 1975 to allow a maintenance order to be amended by a written agreement of the parties registered in the court (recommendation 152);
in capitalizing child support in a property order in order to make an allowance for child support liability, the court specify the effect the order might have on future child support liability (recommendation 153);
if a court makes no allowance for future child support liability, that it be specified in the order that no allowance was made; and
if a court has specified in a property order that there is an allowance for future child support liability, the Child Support Agency calculate on a pro rata basis the amount by which child support should be reduced accordingly.²⁵

The joint committee's recommendations have not yet been acted upon. There has been a change of government since the 1994 report was commissioned; however, it is anticipated that the implementation will take place in 1997.

NEW ZEALAND

A. History of the Existing Scheme

Prior to 1992, New Zealand dealt with family maintenance through a dual system comprising the Liable Contribution Scheme administered by the Department of Social Welfare on the one hand, and court maintenance orders and maintenance agreements administered through the courts on the other hand. The Liable Contribution Scheme introduced in 1981 was designed to recover money for the children of custodians on social assistance through recovering it from the non-custodial parents. It was open to the non-custodial parents to object to the Department of Social Welfare about the amount they had to pay and to apply for a reduction on the grounds of hardship. Under the latter system, maintenance due through either an agreement or an order would be paid through a maintenance officer of the Department of Social Welfare to custodians on social assistance. A number of problems were identified with this dual system, including the following:

both systems were characterized by a high number of ad hoc decisions not at all consistent from region to region;
there was a high level of arrears outstanding that went uncollected;
there were inconsistencies between the two systems in terms of amount of support assessed; and
custodial parents not on social assistance were required to take action through family court, often a lengthy and expensive process.

In 1989, the government appointed the Working Party to develop an improved system. The Working Party included members of the Department of Inland Revenue, the Department of Social Welfare, the Treasury, the State Services Commission, the Department of Justice, the Ministry of Women's Affairs and the Manatu Maori. The structure developed was modelled in large part after the newly established Australian system. The Child Support Bill was introduced into the House in August 1991 and became law in December 1991. The Child Support Act 1991 and the system it created became operational in July 1992.

B. The Child Support Scheme

General

Under the current New Zealand system, the Child Support Agency, part of the Department of Inland Revenue, administers child support. The system is mandatory for those persons on welfare. Parents not receiving social assistance may apply for the services of the Child Support Agency if the liable person is a resident of New Zealand or a citizen and if the custodian is the sole or principal provider of care or sharing custody.

Those people not receiving social assistance have the choice of whether or not to request the assistance of the Child Support Agency. Alternatively, these parents may either proceed through court or arrive at a voluntary agreement with the other party. If the parties draw up a voluntary agreement, they then have the option of having it dealt with by the Child Support Agency, at which point it would be handled administratively and would be subject to all the administrative processes outlined in this section of the report.²⁶ In cases where there are multiple outstanding issues, the matter would likely proceed through the court process. In this situation, the court would generally also resolve the issue of child support. Again, the parties would then have the option of having the court order handled administratively.

For multiple outstanding family issues, the New Zealand family courts rely on the role of mediation to resolve many outstanding issues. As far back as 1978, the Royal Commission on the Courts stated the following:

The Family Court concept demands that the Family Court should be essentially a conciliation service with court appearance as a last resort, rather than a court with a conciliation service. The emphasis is thus placed on mediation rather than adjudication. In this way the disputing parties are encouraged to play a large part in resolving their differences under the guidance of trained staff rather than resorting to the wounding experience of litigation, unless such a course is inevitable.²⁷

In the absence of the court's involvement, the Department of Inland Revenue administers the child support program. This department is involved for the same reason Australia took this approach - because this department has direct access to the information needed to implement existing enforcement measures. Further, the department has expertise in collecting money.

The process starts with the custodial parent's application for child support. The agency then notifies the liable person in writing that an application has been received and accepted and asks that an attached form be completed to confirm details relevant to the assessment.

The Formula

The agency assesses the amount of support liability through application of a formula, the components being

taxable income - based on income tax records;
a living allowance based on the number of dependents supported by the liable parent; and
a child support percentage - the difference between taxable income and the living allowance is multiplied by a percentage rate based on the number of children for whom the liable parent is paying.

Once the Child Support Agency has applied the formula, either the custodian or the liable parent may apply for an order to depart from the formula assessment if certain criteria are satisfied. Prior to 1994, all such requests were handled judicially through the court process. In a situation of shared custody where each parent has care of the child or children for at least 40 percent of the year, both parents are treated as liable and reduced percentage rates are used to calculate liabilities. These liabilities are then offset.

The Departure Scheme

Since July 1, 1994, departure orders might be granted by a review officer through the administrative review process or, failing that avenue, by the family court. This change came about partially as a result of an observed increase in family court litigation following the enactment of the child support legislation. As Bill Atkin of the Victoria University of Wellington reports, "the Child Support Act provoked an enormous amount of litigation. Almost all the proceedings [were] departure applications."²⁸ Liable parents saw this court avenue as a good option because figures released by the Department of Justice indicated departure orders were granted by the court in approximately 46 percent of cases.²⁹

The change to the departure system, brought into effect in the Child Support Amendment Act 1994, means that a review officer must now consider an application before it proceeds to family court.³⁰

If an administrative order is in place, parties requesting a review must first apply for an administrative review before applying to court. The parties then have the option to subsequently attend at court if still dissatisfied. The liable parent must continue to pay support pending the review hearing unless he or she successfully applies for a temporary reduction of the payments.

To request a review of one's circumstances for possible departure from the standard formula, either the custodial or the non-custodial parent must send the application to the Child Support Agency so the review officer can review the file and request any other relevant information. Prior to the review, all the related documentation and supporting evidence are sent out to each of the parties, so the parents should be aware ahead of time of the issues for review.

The grounds and facts forming the basis for the review request must be different from any used in previous administrative hearings. Further, no increase or decrease can be granted for an amount less than $520 per year. In addition, the same grounds required to bring a departure order application in court must be satisfied. These grounds parallel those in the Australian legislation:

at least one of the grounds set out in Section 105(2) of the Child Support Act 1991 is satisfied;
it is "just and equitable" to all parties that a departure order is made;³¹ and
it is "otherwise proper" that the order is made.³²

Pursuant to Section 105(2)(a) of the Child Support Act 1991, departure may be granted because of the reduced ability of one of the parties to provide financial support due to special circumstances and

a duty to maintain another child or person with or without special needs;
commitments necessary to support oneself; or
commitments necessary because of a duty to support another child or person.

According to Section 105(2)(b), departure from the standard formula may be granted because, in the special circumstances of the case, the costs of maintaining the child are affected

by the high costs incurred in enabling access to the child;
because the child has special needs; or
because the child is being cared for, educated or trained in a way expected by either of the parents.

Pursuant to Section 105(2)(c), the third possible basis upon which to bring the application is that, as a result of the special circumstances of the case, it would be unfair and unjust to apply the standard formula assessment because

the income, earning capacity, property or other financial resources of either one of the parties was not considered;
previous payments, transfers or property settlements made for the benefit of the child were not considered; or
the custodial parent has an entitlement to the continued occupancy of property in which the liable parent has a financial interest.

There are 41 review officers in New Zealand. All of them are lawyers who have their own independent legal practices and have been contracted by Inland Revenue to function as review officers as required. The hearings are conducted in the child support office closest to the applicant's place of residence. In the situation where the other party lives a distance away, he or she will participate in the hearing over the telephone. The applicant will first outline his or her case to the review officer and then the review officer will telephone the other party to hear the other side. If any new issues arise during the course of the hearing that could not have been anticipated through reading through the documentation and evidence, the other party will be notified of those issues by the review officer and will be asked to respond.

There is no cost to either party attached to requesting an administrative review, and since being implemented in July 1994, the process has resulted in considerably less litigation in court. The standard for conducting reviews agreed to between Inland Revenue and the government is that 85 percent of reviews are to be conducted within seven weeks, with the balance to be conducted within 10 weeks.

Varying a Child Support Order

The Child Support Agency conducts an annual assessment of existing support orders every April. This assessment is based on the non-custodial or the absent parent's income indicated on the tax return from the previous year. The assessment is then sent out to the non-custodial parent, and a notice of entitlement goes out to the custodial parent.

If the non-custodial parent wishes to dispute this revised assessment, he or she may do so on the basis that his or her income for the present year is at least 15 percent less than the amount appearing on the previous year's tax return. In this situation, the person would be required to send to the Child Support Agency a completed estimation form, providing some form of evidence of the income reduction. The estimation form would then be reviewed and processed administratively simply by plugging in these newly provided income figures. A new assessment and notice of entitlement would then be issued.

Another way in which the non-custodial parent might request a modification is on the basis that his or her living situation has changed during the current tax year. To request a revised support calculation on this basis, the person need only inform the office and the assessment will be adjusted according to the formula.³³

C. Proposals for Reform and Evaluation of the New Zealand Child Support Scheme

In 1993, the government established a Child Support Review Team ("the Working Party") headed by a former family court judge, Judge Trapski. The tasks of the Working Party were as follows:

to examine and consider the child support legislation and the operation of the corresponding scheme; and
to provide recommendations for amendments to the Child Support Act 1991 and for operation of the child support scheme and to propose a methodology for future monitoring of the scheme.³⁴

The Working Party commented on a number of shortcomings in the existing New Zealand system including the following.

The formula:
1. it is too complex;
2. the living allowance provided for is "artificial, illogical and unrealistic"; and
3. the formula produces anomalies, particularly when there is split custody, a remarriage of the non-custodial parent or additional children for the non-custodial parent.³⁵
The base for the assessment: the taxable income base does not always accurately reflect a non-custodial parent's ability to pay and, in some circumstances, should be expanded.
Maximum liability: the Working Party could see no justification for the maximum liability provision, particularly in the situation where the non-custodial parent has the ability to pay more money.
Failure to consider the true economic costs of caring for a child: the Working Party suggested that, rather than changing the basis for the non-custodian's liability to account for this factor also, the New Zealand government conduct a nationwide study of the actual costs of caring for children.
The departure order provision: it is too complicated and the interpretation is unclear.
Voluntary payments handled administratively: the Working Party recommended that, once a voluntary agreement has been registered, the non-custodial parent should be both notified about the implications and told to cease making payments independantly.
Administrative problems: these problems included the unnecessary volume and complexity of the agency's notices and correspondence; an inadequate service level and slow response to inquiries; the low level of quality of any provided information; and general criticisms about the management of people's personal affairs.

In regard to these identified administrative shortcomings, the agency made a number of recommendations for reform, such as the following.

Improved information management: to provide relevant, timely, accurate and understandable information to clients and front-line staff. A major problem identified in regard to this recommended change was that the computer system in use generated confusing and conflicting notices. This system was originally set up for Inland Revenue's more general functions.
Well-defined and properly contained job descriptions for child support personnel: to deal more adequately with the emotional content of the job at every level. The system utilized a case management approach involving one case officer to follow a case through from beginning to end. The duties of this person included initial contact, registration of both parents, assessment of the child support amount and collection. The Working Party suggested these job demands were too strenuous for most case officers and the job profiles should therefore be redefined.
Sufficient staff training: to allow personnel to deal more effectively and sensitively with clients. There were many criticisms from the public that some of the child support personnel lacked adequate interpersonal communication skills. The Working Party suggested enhanced training in listening, oral communication, negotiation, conflict resolution and stress management.
Access to the agency: to provide more effective and efficient service to both non-custodial and custodial parents. The Working Party suggested installation of a toll-free telephone number because often parents would prefer not to attend at the agency office, and the telephone is the most effective means of communication in those situations.
Stress management programs: to train staff members within the agency itself.

Finally, the Working Party also recommended ongoing independent evaluation of the child support system through the establishment of a group to be known as the Child Support Evaluation Advisory Group to monitor the legislation, to field the comments of parents and to assess the social impact of the child support program on parents and children, particularly in regard to the Maori people. Many of the recommendations contained in the Trapski Report have not been acted on because of the current political climate in the country.³⁶ However, as noted, some of the identified administrative problems have been acted upon already, and the Trapski Report is used as the major reference guide for potential reform in the future.

Although the Trapski Report and other studies of the child support scheme have resulted in substantial reform, the New Zealand system is not immune from criticism. These observations parallel comments directed at both the United Kingdom and Australian systems. In 1994, Bill Atkin stated, "[it] is doubtful ... whether the Child Support Act has in practice achieved the goal of meeting the needs of children and their custodians."³⁷ A major criticism of the scheme is that child support has been separated from other family law issues to be treated as a completely distinct issue. In a further 1995 article, Atkin commented:

[The Child Support Act 1991] ... is an attempt to solve the ongoing financial needs of children and care givers but its principles have little to do with equalization of custodial and non-custodial financial positions. It functions on the basis of a set formula which is meant to apply to all families. In particular circumstances, it can therefore lead to gross inequalities. It operates in isolation of property division and tradeoffs to take account of maintenance. The consequence now is that it is most unwise for non-custodial parents to settle property disputes in a way which includes ongoing provision, or for a non-custodial parent to take on additional obligations which are unlikely to lead to an adjustment in child support payments.³⁸

THE UNITED KINGDOM

A. History of the Existing Scheme

Mavis Maclean reports that in the United Kingdom, the Thatcher administration of the 1980s "became increasingly impatient with the nanny state culture of dependency and worked to promote the value of individual effort."³⁹ In addition, the number of lone-parent families was on the increase, growing from six percent in 1961 to 14 percent in 1987.⁴⁰

Prior to the introduction of the child support scheme, the courts set the support orders. The court-based approach was characterized by low levels of maintenance and difficulties in enforcement. In 1989-90, a survey indicated that nearly three out of four parents with care did not receive any support and almost one million lone parents were dependent on government assistance.⁴¹

B. The Child Support Scheme

The Child Support Act 1991

In response to the inadequacies noted in the prior system, the United Kingdom's administrative child support process came into being with the proclamation of the Child Support Act 1991.⁴² This legislation provides for the establishment of an administrative scheme that completely overhauls the role of the court in the area of child support. A significant provision in the Act, Section 8, removes the jurisdiction from the courts to make basic child support assessments in most cases. Pursuant to this provision, the court retains a residual function in the following circumstances:

where the absent parent's income is high and the custodial parent applies to "top up" the agency's assessment;⁴³
where payment of school fees is in issue - the Child Support Agency does not have a mandate to deal with this item of expenditure;⁴⁴
where the child in question suffers a disability and there is a need for an allowance to cover some of the expenses of caring for the child;⁴⁵
in the unusual situation where the party seeks either a lump sum or a property adjustment order in regard to the child or children; or⁴⁶
if an application is made against the person with care.⁴⁷

There has been some discussion about having the agency exercise discretion in these instances also.⁴⁸

An application for an assessment must be supplied on a maintenance application form provided by the Secretary of State at no cost.⁴⁹ Since April 1993, all parents, including those in the process of seeking a divorce, have had to go through the agency to have child support orders assessed and established. Prior to 1993, divorce cases were dealt with through the court system and support would be established there. The reason for the increased move toward using the agency in all situations is that court-ordered maintenance orders were often ignored and the courts' decisions were viewed as very arbitrary.

The effective date of a child maintenance assessment is generally deemed to be the date upon which an application is received.⁵⁰ As soon as practical after the Child Support Agency has received a qualifying application, the agency must contact the other relevant parties, notably the absent parent.⁵¹ This notification is done by means of a maintenance inquiry form sent to the absent parent with a written request that the form be completed and returned within 14 days.⁵²

The absent parent has the right to amend the information provided on the inquiry form at any time before the maintenance assessment is conducted; however, the amendment cannot relate to a change of circumstances that arose after the date of assessment or, in other words, the date upon which the Child Support Agency received the original maintenance application. If the absent or non-custodial parent fails to return the form, an interim maintenance assessment will be made which, punitive in nature, equals an amount about one and a half times as much as the general maintenance requirement. Once the full assessment is made, payments for the period of the interim maintenance assessment become due.

Section 13 provides for the appointment of both child support officers and chief child support officers by the Secretary of State. This Child Support Agency staff works independently, although technically, the staff members are civil servants in the Department of Social Security.⁵³ The officers are involved in "making, reviewing or canceling maintenance assessments."⁵⁴ Accordingly, the child support officers may exercise discretion in regard to not only whether or not to accept an application for a maintenance assessment but also whether or not to accept a request for a review of a maintenance assessment.⁵⁵

The Formula

The child maintenance formula is based on income support rates. The calculations accommodate both parents' ability to contribute to the child support payments through a consideration of how much each parent would have left once basic day-to-day expenses are estimated. The details of the formula include the following factors:

the maintenance requirement (the basic costs of maintaining the children);
assessable income (basic day-to-day expenses offset against net income);
the deduction rate (what proportion of assessable income is to be used for the children's care);
additional element (applies only when the parent's income is high enough that he or she can provide more than basic child support);
protected level of income (ensures that, after child support payments have been calculated, the non-custodial parent's income remains significantly above basic income support);
a minimum amount (parents are generally expected to pay this amount for their children's care);
extra provision for disabled children (the court addresses this issue, which requires the exercise of discretion); and
inclusion of costs for the parent with care (represents the care needed by the child over and above food and clothing needs).

The formula also provides for certain special cases; if one of the following categories exists, special arrangements will be made pursuant to the formula:

both parents are absent parents (the lone-parent premium would not be included);
care of the child is shared (allowances are included in exempt income and protected income to provide for time spent with the child and the non-custodial parent is deemed to have already contributed a proportion of the total support due, based on the proportion of time spent with the child);
different children of a non-custodial parent are in the care of different people (assessed support is shared between the different applications based on the comparative sizes of the support requirements); or
a custodial parent looks after the children of more than one non-custodial parent.⁵⁶

The Administrative Review Process

If a parent is dissatisfied with the child support officer's assessment, he or she can request a review. The first stage of the administrative review process is set up so that an officer not involved in the initial maintenance assessment conducts this review.⁵⁷ Pursuant to Section 18 of the Child Support Act 1991, the basis for a review of a child support officer's assessment is reasonable grounds for supposing the "refusal, assessment or cancellation" in question

was made in ignorance of a material fact;
was based on a mistake as to a material fact; or
was wrong in law⁵⁸.

Before the review proceeds, notice is given to the interested parties.⁵⁹ If the reviewing officer determines that a fresh assessment is appropriate in the circumstances, the same officer will proceed on that basis.⁶⁰

Beyond this right to request an initial review, a dissatisfied party can request a further review by a child support appeal tribunal within 28 days of receiving notification of the reviewing child support officer's decision.⁶¹ Section 21 and Schedule III of the Child Support Act 1991 set out the constitution and authority of the tribunal. Schedule III states that the same person appointed as the President of the social security appeal tribunals, medical appeal tribunals and disability appeal tribunals pursuant to the Social Security Act 1975 "shall, by virtue of that appointment, also be President of the child support appeal tribunals."⁶² The tribunal is therefore completely independent of the Child Support Agency.

The President of the tribunal has the responsibility for filling the tribunal positions; each tribunal consists of a chairman and two other members. The chairman must have "a five year general qualification or [be] an advocate or solicitor in Scotland of five years' standing."⁶³ The other members of the tribunal are drawn from panels and must "[appear] to the President to have knowledge or experience of conditions in the [geographical] area and to be representative of persons living or working in the area."Often, these two members do not have directly relevant experience, but this factor has not been seen as a problem ⁶⁴ because they receive adequate assistance from the legally trained chair and the clerk in attendance at the hearings.

Beyond the tribunal level, appeals are heard by the Child Support Commissioner, who is appointed by the Queen pursuant to Section 22 of the Child Support Act 1991. The Commissioner will only hear appeals on questions of law arising out of either the child support officer's or the appeal tribunal's decision. A commissioner must have at least 10 years of general legal experience.⁶⁵

Varying the Child Support Order

In order to adjust the amount of the child support order, the Child Support Agency must conduct a review. The review may take one of two forms.⁶⁶

The first form of review is a periodic review automatically conducted every two years.⁶⁷ The interested parties are contacted and asked to provide up-to-date information. A fresh assessment is then made on the basis of this new information.

The second review type is for a change of circumstances.⁶⁸ The request of one of the parties initiates this review process. The basis for requesting review of a maintenance order already in force is that "by reason of a change of circumstance since the original assessment was made, the amount of child support maintenance payable by the absent parent would be significantly different if it were to be fixed ... as at the date of application."⁶⁹ The test applied by the child support officer for determining whether or not to conduct the review is whether "it is likely that he [or she] will be required ... to make a fresh maintenance assessment."⁷⁰ In other words, if the child support officer with conduct of the file considers it likely that upon completion of the review, the support amount will change so as to require an entirely new assessment to be done, the review request will be accepted. Upon request for a review, the other interested party is notified and asked to provide any relevant up-to-date information about his or her circumstances.

A fresh maintenance assessment follows from the review except in the situation where "the original assessment has ceased to have effect or should be brought to an end" or where the difference between the assessed amount and the initial assessment on the one hand and between the assessed amount and a fresh assessment on the other hand would be less than the prescribed amount.⁷¹

C. Evaluation of the United Kingdom Scheme

The United Kingdom's child support system has come under a fair amount of criticism since its inception in 1991. The primary criticism centres on the complexity of the process, which has led to lengthy delays in processing the child support claims. Critics suggest the system has been set up to encourage Child Support Agency personnel to focus on increasing the amount of child support payments from non-custodial parents who are already making payments on a regular basis. In other words, the system has not been designed in such a way as to provide a lot of resources to go into the task of locating "fugitive-location" parents.⁷² A further criticism is that the system as implemented does not accommodate non-custodial parents who have since assumed additional parental and financial obligations with a second family.⁷³

Other criticisms of the British system centre on the provisions of the legislation. In 1993, solicitor Imogen Clout reviewed potential effects on the way barristers and solicitors would have to conduct business in order to accommodate the legislation. First, an agreement by the custodial parent not to seek maintenance in exchange for something else during the course of negotiations is no longer possible. According to Clout,

... in the past husbands and wives have entered into ... agreements and stuck by them. They have trusted in the good faith of the other party and mostly that trust is rewarded. If the matter is taken back to court later for an increase, the court is warned by the existence of the original intention of the parties and the fact that the division of capital may have reflected the existence of the agreement.⁷⁴

Also affected is the general approach a solicitor must take to the case and the potential for delay in dealing with any other related outstanding family issues. The solicitor must tell the client to attend at the Child Support Agency as an initial step before any other family issues can be addressed. In other words, it is not possible to advise a client about the potential outcome of a family case unless support is first settled.⁷⁵ As a result of the Act, the court no longer has jurisdiction over most cases of child maintenance, and the matters are appealed through the administrative channels instead.⁷⁶ This characteristic contrasts with the substantial reviewing role of the courts in both New Zealand and Australia. In addition, there are questions about the efficiency of the system itself. Linda Cecil of the Department of Social Security estimates that when the administrative system was first set up, the Child Support Agency process was probably more lengthy than the court process. This factor may have resulted from people's initial mistrust of the agency and unwillingness to comply, particularly at the outset when they were required to return the necessary documentation and become actively participatory.⁷⁷

In regard to the 1995 amendments to the Act, solicitor David Burrows argues that the newly enacted provisions will only serve to further complicate the existing system. In his words, "the Act creates a system which is far more elaborate than the one operated by district judges and magistrates under the parallel family courts jurisdiction ... by the Child Support Agency route the result will be achieved by more complicated, time-consuming - and therefore more expensive - means."⁷⁸

Finally, the provisions of the Act have resulted in fewer possible "permutations of arrangements between parties which previously were available to them."⁷⁹ The United Kingdom system has been set up in such a way that other family issues are not at all addressed in relation to child support. This separation of issues has become even more pronounced since 1993 when the agency assumed jurisdiction over child support in every situation.⁸⁰A couple of interest groups have formed in Britain. Two of the most prominent are the Network Against Child Support and Families Need Fathers. These groups have stressed the need to look at maintenance and access as interrelated issues and to deal with them accordingly. To date, Parliament and the Child Support Agency have maintained a hard-line approach that child support is to be dealt with as an exclusive issue.

Alastair Bissett-Johnson and Jonathan Fitzpatrick recently examined the disadvantages of the British system in reference to the Canadian government's consideration of imposing administrative formulae in favour of litigation in Canada.⁸¹ They identified the need for both more simple formulae and a residual role for courts for more complex cases. In their opinion, it is not advisable to set up a system that focuses only on child support and ignores other family issues. They suggest "a holistic approach," which would "encourage comprehensive mediation" to be used.⁸² They suggest the implementation of certain characteristics into any system, based on what they see as shortcomings in the British system. Some of their recommendations are as follows:

make sure that, initially, there is not an overload of cases so as to allow for available resources to provide sufficient guidance to people;
"clean-break" settlements already established through the court process should be left intact;⁸³
ongoing seasonal calculations of child support owed might be necessary and should be provided for in at least some cases;
attention should be given to the impact of the system on second families and to other resulting and unintended side effects that may emerge; and
high support orders may have significant effects on issues such as property division that are to be subsequently addressed, perhaps through another process (this factor should be kept in mind and addressed).

D. Proposed Reform of the Scheme

In January 1995, the British Parliament published its white paper Improving Child Support, which set out proposals for reform to the child support system originally established pursuant to the 1991 legislation. Some of the proposals resulted in changes to the formulae in the regulations. The other changes were included in the Child Support Act 1995. The changes include not only increased flexibility through the introduction of a departure system to be applied administratively, but also an element of discretion when applying the formulae to the circumstances of a case. The departure system is still under pilot and is anticipated to become law in the near future; only certain provisions of the Child Support Act 1995 have already been proclaimed (or commenced).⁸⁴

¹It is acknowledged by the writer that the term "non-custodial" parent may not be entirely accurate in all situations; however, the term is used throughout the report for the sake of convenience.

²Liz Alexander, "Australia's Child Support Scheme: Much Promised, Little Delivered?" 42 Family Matters 7 (Spring/Summer 1995).

³Margaret Harrison, "Child Support Reforms: The Australian Experience," 32:2 Family and Conciliation Courts Review 176 (April 1994), at 176.

⁴Supra note 2, at 7.

⁵Mavis Maclean, "Child Support in the U.K.: Making the Move from Court to Agency," 31:2 Houston Law Review 515 (Summer 1994).

⁶Lyn Winzer and Lynda Donnelly, "The Family Mediation Centre: Cutting the Real Costs of Family Disputes (Pt. 2)," 13:3 Legal Services Bulletin, at 125.

⁷(1988) (Austl.).

⁸Ibid.

⁹There are several components of the Australian formula, each applying to a different set of facts or income situations.

¹⁰Supra note 2, at 8.

¹¹Supra note 3, at 178.

¹²Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989, Section 117(1).

¹³Ibid., Section 117(2).

¹⁴The policy behind the 1989 split between court and administrative varying of the orders follows from the notion that many agreements drawn up prior to 1989 make provision for future support through other arrangements beyond the formula-based assessment and corresponding criteria currently used. The policy decision was made not to interfere with those pre-existing arrangements.

¹⁵Supra note 3, at 180.

¹⁶Supra note 3, at 180.

¹⁷In her article, "Australia's Child Support Scheme," supra note 2, Liz Alexander states, "the Agency compares the total amount collected with what it calls ‘the estimated collectable amount,' a number based on highly questionable premises. By pitching this number low, the resulting rate looks extremely high; but, the [Joint Select] Committee points out, it bears little relation to reality. Furthermore, even the total amount collected is not satisfactorily defined. For example, the Agency includes money collected privately, not by the Agency, but by custodial parents whose agreements are merely registered with the Agency," at 9.

¹⁸Supra note 2, at 8.

¹⁹Supra note 3, at 178.

²⁰Supra note 3, at 182.

²¹For instance, Liz Alexander, supra note 2, reports that the joint committee found "the total delay between registration and first payment was 142 days," at 9.

²²M. Kingshott, "Don't Call Us, We'll Call You: Complaints about the Child Support Agency," 17:2 Alternative Law Journal 71 (1992), cited by Liz Alexander supra note 2, at 11. Kingshott also reports that the agency does not respond to custodial parents' correspondence and this characteristic results in frustration on the part of these parents.

²³"Child Support: Parliamentary Committee Recommends Major Changes to Child Support Scheme," 2 Current Family Law 1996, at 203-8.

²⁴Ibid.

²⁵Ibid.

²⁶Those persons receiving social assistance do not have the option of drawing up a voluntary agreement because there is a certain amount of money they are obligated to collect from non-custodial parents.

²⁷At 448 of the Royal Commission on the Courts' 1978 report, quoted by the Hon. Peter Boshier, "New Zealand Family Law Report," 33:2 Family and Conciliation Courts Review 182 (April 1995), at 183.

²⁸W.R. Atkin, "Child Support in New Zealand Runs into Strife," 31 Houston Law Review 631 (1994), at 636.

²⁹Liam Thomas and Maria Deligiannis, "Departing from the Child Support Formula Assessment," 4 Lawtalk 420 (August 1994), at 420.

³⁰The administrative review process cannot be used for those persons paying child support pursuant to either a voluntary agreement or a court-ordered maintenance order.

³¹Section 105(4) of the Child Support Act sets out this criterion.

³²This test has been defined through the common law - the interests of the state are balanced against the other objects of the Act.

³³The person does not need to provide any proof if proceeding on this basis.

³⁴Child Support Review 1994: Report of the Working Party (November 8, 1994).

³⁵Ibid., at 17-21.

³⁶The government has a very small majority and an election is soon to occur; the child support legislation is seen as being controversial.

³⁷Supra note 28, at 634.

³⁸Bill Atkin, "Family Property Law Reform," 25 Victoria University of Wellington Law Review 77 (February 1995), at 79.

³⁹Supra note 5, at 529.

⁴⁰Supra note 5, at 530, citing from J. Bradshaw and J. Millar, Lone Parent Families in the UK (1991).

⁴¹This information was supplied by a representative of the United Kingdom Department of Social Security.

⁴²Child Support Act 1991, c. 48.

⁴³Ibid., Section 8(6). The formulae contain a maximum level of support that will be ordered. When the non-custodial parent is wealthy and has income that surpasses the maximum, it is necessary that the court determine additional amounts owed. The basic assessment would be done by the Child Support Agency before the matter proceeds to court.

⁴⁴Supra note 42, Section 8(7).

⁴⁵Supra note 42, Section 8(8).

⁴⁶Helen Meadows, "Child Maintenance after the 1991 Act: The Residual Functions of the Court," 24 Family Law 96 (February 1994), at 97.

⁴⁷Supra note 42, Section 8(10).

⁴⁸It may prove problematic if the agency is to assume too much decision-making authority. At the outset of the process, the agency's role in setting support orders was justified by the fact that the formulae are so rigid they leave very little room for discretion.

⁴⁹Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th ed., reissue, Vol. 5(2), at para 866.

⁵⁰Ibid., at para 871.

⁵¹There may of course be other relevant parties included; however, this party is generally the absent parent.

⁵²Supra note 49, at para 872.

⁵³The Child Support Agency is an executive agency of the Department of Social Security and, as such, enjoys the status of being a "quasi-independent" agency.

⁵⁴Supra note 42, Section 13(4)(a).

⁵⁵Supra note 42, Section 18(1).

⁵⁶A Guide to Child Support Maintenance (United Kingdom Child Support Agency, 1996).

⁵⁷Supra note 42, Section 18(7). This subsection states, "The Secretary of State shall arrange for a review under this section to be conducted by a child support officer who played no part in making the decision which is to be reviewed."

⁵⁸Supra note 42, Section 18(6).

⁵⁹Supra note 42, Section 18(8).

⁶⁰Supra note 42, Section 18(9).

⁶¹Supra note 42, Section 20.

⁶²Supra note 42, Schedule III, Section 1(1).

⁶³Supra note 42, Schedule III, Section 2(3).

⁶⁴Ibid.

⁶⁵Ibid., Section 22(2).

⁶⁶The appeal of a child support officer's decision is also called a review, as already discussed.

⁶⁷Supra note 41, Section 16.

⁶⁸Supra note 41, Section 17.

⁶⁹Supra note 41, Section 17(2).

⁷⁰Supra note 41, Section 17(3).

⁷¹Supra note 41, Section 17(6).

⁷²See, for example, Richard Crouch, attorney at law, Arlington, Virginia, USA, "U.K. Support Agency's Antics Cause Howls of Outrage," at Internet site: http://adams.patriot.net/~crouch/flnc/ukspt.html (undated). Note that a disclaimer has been added to this article which states that "most articles include some obsolete information" and "items are not to be considered legal advice."

⁷³Ibid. This comment could be said to be directed more at the legislative provisions than at the administrative process.

⁷⁴Imogen Clout, "Child Support Act 1991: The Implications for Divorce Solicitors," 23 Family Law 236 (April 1993).

⁷⁵Ibid., at 238.

⁷⁶David Salter, "Farewell Periodical Payments: Hello Child Support Maintenance," 23 Family Law 171 (April 1993).

⁷⁷The agency is gradually becoming more accepted and known. However, there are still efforts under way to increase the agency's credibility. For instance, Manchester is currently hosting a pilot project to reach out to the public through advertisements, radio and other means.

⁷⁸David Burrows, "Child Support in 1996," 140:1 Solicitors Journal 18 (January 1996).

⁷⁹Ibid.

⁸⁰This observation is subject to the court's residual power to deal with those decisions requiring discretion and flexibility in applying the formulae - for instance, in regard to children with disabilities, school fees and "topping up" support payments.

⁸¹Alastair Bissett-Johnson and Jonathan Fitzpatrick, "Reform of the Law of Child Support: By Judicial Discretion or by Legislation? (Pt. 2)," 75 The Canadian Bar Review 1 (March 1996).

⁸²Ibid., at 29.

⁸³The departure system pilot projects provide for a bit more flexibility than was previously available. For instance, it will soon be possible to request a departure order because there has been a "clean-break settlement." The result of such a settlement will be that a certain amount of support (as prescribed) will be subtracted from the support calculated as owing; however, the "clean-break settlement" is not going to be recognized as an excuse for not making regular support payments.

⁸⁴The Select Committee on Child Support has suggested that a big flaw in the child support program is that it was never piloted before being fully implemented. The departure system is being piloted before full implementation.

Next page


		Last Updated: 2006-04-28		Important Notices

EXPEDITED CHILD SUPPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS