Case studies - faults in "shared care" in the reformed scheme
Case Studies - anomalies in the reformed shared-care formula
1 Two separated parents earn the same and share care 4:3. The NRP becomes far worse off than the PWC, and would be much better off never seeing the child.
2 Two rich parents share care equally. The person claiming Child Benefit is encouraged to use the CSA to obtain an unfair stream of money from the NRP.
3 The NRP is on benefits and the PWC earns. The NRP is financially abandoned by the state and the other parent while caring for the child.
4 Both parents earn the same low pay and share care equally. The parent claiming Child Benefit can also claim WFTC and childcare tax credits. The state bribes the NRP never to see the children.
5 Like "1", but they earn a little more and share care 5:2, with similar results.
6 Both parents are on benefits and share care. Only the PWC gets help from the state for the child.
7 This shows the totally unexplained difference between the way the CSA White Paper deals with equal split care and with equal shared care of two children.
Home & weblog
Blog archive & site history
Site map & search

Case Study 3

The situation

The NRP is out of work and claims Job Seeker's Allowance. The PWC earns £300 per week. The PWC receives £14.40 Child Benefit.

The PWC has their son for 4 nights per week, while the NRP has him for the other 3 nights.

Each parent is assumed to spend more for the first night of care than subsequent nights. They spend a total of £65 per week on their son.

The result

Although she earns a respectable amount and he is on benefits, the PWC only spends one-and-a-half times on their son as he does out of her earned income, because she receives help from the DSS in the form of Child Benefit.

The amount he retains is unsustainable. He is completely abandoned in his attempts to care for their son. Neither the State nor the other parent provide any assistance whatsoever. He would be £15 better off not caring for his son.

With the Fair Shares formula, she would pay about £19 for his 3 days. (3/7 of 15% of £300). Of this, £10 would be disregarded leaving him and his son better off, while the rest would reduce benefits spend. She would still be vastly better off than he would, of course.

This is an HTML transcription of an article written in September 1999, hence the benefits rates, the references to the White Paper, etc.

Page last updated: 5 July, 2004 © Copyright Barry Pearson 2003