Selective Scrutiny: Who Gets Heard on the Child Maintenance Service — And Who Is Shut Out?

Baroness Sherlock Minister responsible for Child Maintenance policy

There is a growing problem in the debate around the Child Maintenance Service (CMS), and it is not just about policy.

It is about access, influence, and whose evidence is allowed to shape decisions.

---

Direct Access — But Not for Everyone

On its own website, Gingerbread confirms that it has already taken part in a roundtable meeting with Baroness Sherlock, where single parents were invited to speak directly to the Minister about their experiences.

That matters.

It shows that certain stakeholder groups are being given direct access to ministerial discussions, with the opportunity to shape both narrative and policy direction.

At the same time, groups such as STOPSuicides UK (STOPS) — who are raising evidence of systemic harm, including suicide and elevated mortality linked to CMS processes — have been repeatedly refused equivalent engagement.

The issue is not that Gingerbread is being heard.

The issue is that others are not.

---

A One-Sided Evidence Base

The current CMS debate is increasingly driven by a narrow evidential framework.

There is significant focus on:

• The experiences of receiving parents
• Non-payment and enforcement failures
• Claims of widespread domestic abuse within CMS cases

These are serious issues and deserve attention.

But they are not the whole picture.

What is largely missing from the discussion is the growing body of evidence showing harm on the other side of the system, including:

• Parliamentary evidence linking incorrect arrears assessments to suicide
• Freedom of Information data confirming reported suicides within CMS cases, many under Collect and Pay enforcement
• Independent analysis indicating elevated mortality rates among paying parents compared to the general population
• Evidence of systemic errors, IT failures, and inadequate safeguarding responses

These are not isolated claims.

They are supported by:

• Government-held data
• Parliamentary scrutiny
• Investigative reporting

---

Policy Without Balance

Policy does not emerge in a vacuum.

It is shaped by the evidence that is heard — and equally, by the evidence that is not.

If only one side of the system is consistently presented to Ministers, then policy risks becoming:

One-directional — and potentially unsafe.

This is particularly concerning at a time when there are calls to:

• Strengthen enforcement
• Expand administrative powers
• Reduce reliance on court oversight

Without properly addressing:

• The accuracy of underlying liabilities
• The safeguarding of vulnerable individuals
• The documented risk of psychological harm, including suicide

---

The Risk of Excluding Scrutiny

The refusal to engage with groups raising systemic concerns is not a neutral act.

It has consequences.

When organisations presenting evidence of harm are excluded from discussions:

• Their evidence is not tested
• Their findings are not challenged
• Their warnings are not fully considered

That creates blind spots in policy-making.

And when those blind spots relate to safeguarding, the risks are obvious.

---

A Simple Question

If the goal is to reform the CMS — and there is broad agreement that reform is needed — then one question must be answered:

Why are those raising evidence of systemic harm not being allowed into the conversation?

---

Final Point

This is not about choosing between receiving parents and paying parents.

It is about recognising that:

The CMS can cause serious harm in multiple directions when it fails.

A system cannot be made fair by listening to only one side of that reality.

Selective engagement does not lead to better policy.

It leads to incomplete decisions, built on incomplete evidence.

And when the stakes include financial stability, mental health, and in some cases loss of life, that is not a risk that should be ignored.

Prior Involvement and the Need for Open Scrutiny

It is also relevant to note that Baroness Sherlock previously served as a non-executive director of the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission (CMEC), the predecessor body responsible for child maintenance administration prior to the current CMS structure.

This prior involvement does not, in itself, determine any current position.

However, it does make it all the more important that:

All relevant evidence — including evidence of systemic harm — is subject to open and balanced scrutiny.

In that context, the continued refusal to engage with groups raising evidence of:

• Suicide linked to CMS processes
• Elevated mortality
• Safeguarding concerns

raises legitimate questions about whether the full range of evidence is being considered.

#FixTheCMS #ChildMaintenance #CMSReform #Safeguarding #MentalHealth #Accountability #Fairness #PolicyMatters #HiddenHarm #VoicesNotHeard #ChildMaintenanceServiceScandal