My Lords, I am only relating the facts as presented to me in the letter. I do not know the answer to the noble Baroness’s question. But the point is, surely, that even if the mother—or, indeed, the father—was on benefit, the amicable arrangement could or should have continued.
As I was saying, the three people involved—the father, the mother and, most importantly, the child—are all losers in this case, all due to the intervention of the CSA. I tabled the amendment to discover whether the reworded schedule or the Bill as a whole would prevent such a case recurring. If I have understood the addition to Schedule 4 correctly, adding the words ““has been”” would mean that if a shared care arrangement was operating in the best interests of both estranged parents and the child, CMEC would not be able to disturb it. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me that I am right. I beg to move.
Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Skelmersdale
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 2 June 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
702 c34 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 23:51:30 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_475986
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_475986
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_475986