Show the Working

Reform the Child Maintenance Service

Reform UK · what the evidence says

An independent, source-checked look at Reform UK’s policy “Reform the Child Maintenance Service” — what it would actually do across the things that affect your life. Every claim below quotes the source behind it. How this works.

Personal liberty & free speech — Hurts

minor · moderate confidence

The policy mandates a specific parenting arrangement (50/50 shared care) and gives grandparents enforceable access rights, both of which override parents' autonomous choices about their own family life. The 'where appropriate' qualifier limits but does not remove the coercive element.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: How broadly courts interpret 'where appropriate' will determine how often the 50/50 mandate is imposed against parental preference — a narrow reading could make the liberty cost negligible.

Our reading: O10 is the home for negative liberty — freedom from state coercion over private choices, including family arrangements. This policy introduces two distinct coercive elements. First, mandating 50/50 shared parental care displaces parental autonomy: where parents would otherwise reach a different arrangement by agreement or under a welfare-first judicial assessment, the state imposes a numerical default. The evidence confirms Parliament has deliberately refrained from this step precisely because a presumption of equal time is not the same as the welfare-centred assessment current law requires. The 'where appropriate' qualifier introduces judicial discretion, which limits but does not eliminate the coercive effect — it shifts the burden onto parents who must argue their circumstances away from the default. Second, guaranteeing grandparents' rights of access creates a new enforceable claim on parents' choices about who may have contact with their child. Currently parents can deny access without court intervention; this policy converts grandparental access into a right that can be litigated against them. Both measures enlarge the state's reach into intimate family decisions. The special court division is largely procedural and, on its own, would not worsen liberty — improved enforcement of existing obligations is not a new coercive power. The net effect is a worsening of parental autonomy through two new state-backed mandates. The magnitude is minor rather than moderate because the 50/50 clause is expressly qualified and courts already have powers to order contact; these reforms expand rather than create judicial involvement. Confidence is moderate because the real-world coercive impact depends entirely on how courts construe 'where appropriate', which the policy text does not define.

Cost of living — Mixed picture

minor · low confidence

Better enforcement of child maintenance could boost disposable income for lower-income single parents, but mandating 50/50 shared care often reduces or eliminates maintenance obligations, which could leave primary caregivers worse off financially. Both effects are uncertain in scale.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether the 50/50 shared care mandate will be applied broadly enough to materially cut maintenance flows to receiving parents, and whether a specialist court division would actually improve enforcement speed and compliance.

Our reading: This policy touches O2 (cost of living) primarily through its child maintenance enforcement strand. The measurable baseline is stark: £614 million unpaid since 2012, 22,760 parents in arrears, and over a million families with no maintenance arrangement at all. Since maintenance flows directly into the disposable income of typically lower-income single parents — and is estimated to lift 140,000 children out of poverty — better enforcement would be materially positive for O2 for receiving households. A specialist court division could plausibly strengthen enforcement (E15 projects this), though this remains a forecast rather than an evidenced outcome. However, the 50/50 shared care mandate cuts in the opposite direction on O2. In practice, when care is split equally, maintenance obligations are typically reduced or eliminated. If the mandate is applied broadly, primary caregivers — disproportionately lower-income mothers — could lose maintenance income they currently receive. UK Parliament has deliberately not enacted a 50/50 presumption precisely because of welfare and conflict concerns (E22, E24). The policy's lack of specificity on 'where appropriate' means the scope is unknown. These two effects — better enforcement improving disposable income, and the 50/50 mandate potentially reducing it — run in opposite directions with real uncertainty about which dominates. Neither effect is projected to be large in absolute terms relative to the full O2 basket (energy, food, general bills), so the overall magnitude is minor. Confidence is low because the critical parameter — how broadly 50/50 is mandated — is undefined, and no quantitative modelling of either effect is provided in the evidence.

Crime, justice & national security — Mixed picture

minor · low confidence

Creating a dedicated family court division could improve maintenance enforcement and access to justice, but mandating 50/50 shared care may increase contested litigation and court pressure. The net effect on justice system functioning is genuinely uncertain.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether mandating 50/50 shared care generates a surge in contested court cases that overwhelms any efficiency gains from the dedicated division, or whether the welfare-based 'where appropriate' qualifier limits its practical reach.

Our reading: For O5 — whether justice works — this policy has genuine pull in two directions. On the positive side, the dedicated Family Court division addresses a documented failure in the maintenance system: £614 million unpaid since 2012 and systemic delays identified in the current CMS. Court-based enforcement could provide stronger and more immediate tools than the current administrative route, improving the 'justice works' indicator for a large group of receiving parents. Streamlining grandparent access by removing the 'leave to apply' barrier also addresses a known bottleneck in the family justice system. On the negative side for O5, mandating 50/50 shared care — even with a 'where appropriate' qualifier — risks generating a significant increase in contested hearings. English and Welsh law has deliberately avoided a 50/50 presumption precisely because welfare outcomes vary and high parental conflict is harmful; a statutory mandate, however qualified, could incentivise litigation rather than reduce it, adding to court backlogs rather than clearing them. The prevalence of 50/50 arrangements has remained very low (around 3%) suggesting most cases genuinely do not suit it; judicial discretion already allows it where welfare supports it. The 'where appropriate' qualifier may limit the mandate's practical scope, making this sub-element closer to negligible — but the direction of any effect is contested. The net verdict is 'mixed/minor': the maintenance court division is the strongest O5-relevant element and points toward improved justice functioning, but the 50/50 mandate introduces countervailing litigation risk. Confidence is low because no independent institutional modelling of case-volume effects was available in the provided evidence.

Equal treatment & democratic rights — Helps

minor · moderate confidence

This policy would strengthen due process in family maintenance disputes, extend legal access rights to grandparents, and give separated parents clearer equal standing before courts — all of which improve access to fair legal treatment. The biggest uncertainty is whether the 50/50 care mandate would be applied in a way that genuinely serves equal treatment or create new inequities in high-conflict cases.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether courts can apply the 50/50 shared-care mandate flexibly enough to avoid overriding child-welfare considerations in high-conflict separations, which could expose a category of children and parents to less — not more — fair treatment.

Our reading: O9 concerns due process, equal treatment before the law, and access to legal rights. This policy touches all three dimensions of that fundamental. On due process: the current CMS system involves a multi-stage administrative complaints process taking up to six months, with acknowledged arrears despite a 75% compliance rate. A dedicated court division with judicial oversight would formalise and strengthen enforcement and accountability — a clear due-process improvement for both paying and receiving parents. On legal access and minority protections: grandparents currently face a two-stage barrier — 'leave to apply' before even lodging a contact application — which is costly and slow. The policy would extend enforceable access rights to this group. There is cross-party parliamentary support for exactly this kind of reform, and the procedural burden is well-documented. Removing or reducing the 'leave to apply' requirement would expand due-process access for a group currently at a legal disadvantage. On equal treatment between separated parents: mandating 50/50 shared care 'where appropriate' introduces a presumption of parental equality before the court that does not currently exist. This could advance equal treatment between mothers and fathers. However, Parliament has deliberately avoided this presumption, and evidence shows high parental conflict can harm children in shared-care arrangements. The 'where appropriate' qualifier in the stated text is the key pivot: if interpreted broadly it is a modest due-process equaliser; if interpreted narrowly it may have negligible effect; if applied rigidly in contested cases it could reduce rather than improve fair outcomes for vulnerable parties. Overall, two of the three elements — the court division and grandparent rights — point clearly toward improved due process and legal access. The 50/50 mandate introduces genuine uncertainty. The net direction is a minor improvement to O9, contingent on implementation quality.

Compare all parties on personal liberty & free speech →Compare all parties on cost of living →Compare all parties on crime, justice & national security →Compare all parties on equal treatment & democratic rights →Open this in the interactive comparison →← Show the Working home