17. Mr A contacted CMS at the end of August 2023 to enquire if CMS would assist in arranging DNA testing if he asked them to set up a case and assess how much maintenance he should be paying. Mr A complains CMS told him they could do this, before telling him it could not.
18. CMS told him it had been wrong to advise him he could get help with DNA testing, because he was planning to apply as the paying parent. CMS accepted that, on the basis of him being given this wrong advice, Mr A made an application to CMS he would not otherwise have made. Mr A says he was only seeking CMS’ involvement because he wanted CMS to help with DNA testing.
19. He says he would have been able to arrange DNA testing himself. But he knew CMS’ could help arrange testing, and it would usually be cheaper than if he was approaching a private company himself. He also says he knew that, if the test result showed he not the parent, CMS would not expect a person to pay for the test.
Is the DNA testing policy fair?
20. Mr A felt it was unreasonable for CMS to say it would not assist him with DNA testing. He felt it should have done this because it told him this is what he could expect. He also said it is wrong for CMS to refuse testing to assist him with testing, on the grounds that he was a paying parent making an application to CMS.
21. He said this shows CMS would have assisted him if he made the application as the receiving parent and that is an unreasonable policy.
22. We carefully considered the way CMS’ policy around DNA testing, and asked it to explain why it only facilitates testing in specific circumstance.
23. CMS explained it can provide assistance with DNA testing when a parentage dispute needs to be settled for the case to go ahead. It considers DNA testing is an option if a parent with care applies to CMS and the paying parent does not accept they are the parent and refuses to pay.
24. There was no such dispute in Mr A’s case. Mr A made the application to CMS. If he did not wish to make payments or did not want CMS involved, he could ask to close the case. From Mr A’s point of view, a DNA test was needed so he could be certain about whether he should be paying. But from CMS’ point of view, his circumstances meant a DNA test was not needed.
25. CMS also explained DNA testing should never be immediately arranged, even if a receiving parent has applied and the paying parent asks for a DNA test.
26. This is reflected in its Decision Makers’ Guide. Section 45007 of that guidance says ‘DNA testing should not automatically be offered and local Parentage Ambassadors must be consulted.’ From reviewing CMS’ guidance, we can see it would only assist with DNA testing if there is no other way to resolve a parentage dispute. First, it should consider whether evidence may already exist that shows a person is or is not the parent.
27. Having considered CMS’ guidance, we can see CMS does not help with DNA testing unless this is necessary for maintenance to be paid. Where a paying parent has made an application to CMS, they declare they do want to pay maintenance for the children they name in their application.
28. And importantly, if he did not wish to pay or did not want CMS involved, he could ask them to close the case. This means that, even if Mr A told them he disputed he was the parent, DNA testing would not be necessary. Mr A could simply stop paying maintenance if he believed the children were not his.
29. We appreciate Mr A felt CMS were treating him unfairly. His complaint does not show it is unreasonable for CMS to have a policy to say he did not need help with DNA testing. CMS’ role is to ensure appropriate maintenance is paid, in line with its legal responsibilities in the Child Support Act 1991.
30. CMS cannot have a role in family disputes beyond what it needs to do to ensure maintenance is paid, and this means it could not help someone seeking DNA testing in the way Mr A did.
31. Mr A also complains that, if CMS would not assist with testing, it should not have led him to think it would in the first place. CMS has acknowledged he should not have been told he could expect help with a DNA test when he called to discuss making an application, and recognised he would not have gone ahead with his claim if he had not been given this wrong advice.
32. CMS paid Mr A £150 in recognition of the distress this caused him. Mr A complains this was insufficient.
33. The DWP Customer Charter says CMS will give people the correct information, and our Principles of Good Administration say organisations should follow their policies correctly. CMS did not act in line with these principles when it told Mr A he could expect help with DNA testing so CMS did need to consider what impact its actions had on Mr A and what it should do to put things right.
34. Mr A felt this remedy was insufficient because it did not recognise how stressful and upsetting this had been for him, and also the children. He explained he told the children he was arranging DNA testing and this has been traumatic for them and damaged their relationship. He said this had made his anxiety and depression worse. Mr A was a student in 2023/24 and said CMS’ actions meant he could not complete his studies.
35. Mr A told us he still wants CMS to help with DNA testing. We appreciate Mr A is concerned the cost of DNA testing means it is not an option for him, without the assistance of CMS. We cannot ask CMS to do this, because we can see it has good reason for not offering help to get DNA testing.
36. Mr A told us CMS should pay a significantly larger financial remedy, because of the impact this matter on his life, and to help him arrange therapy for the children.
37. We were sorry to hear how difficult this has been for Mr A. He has regular contact with the children and shares care with their mother. Any problems in their relationship would clearly be upsetting.
38. We cannot directly examine the children’s distress as part of this investigation, as the children have not bought a complaint about how they feel to us. We do not have any evidence from the children, showing how they were affected. However we can appreciate that any distress they experienced would also have a significant impact on Mr A who, while he questions whether he is their parent, has taken responsibility for their care.
39. Mr A explained he is still seeking to have DNA testing for the children. We recognise that any discussions he had with CMS would have led him to think DNA testing may be imminent. We also note it is Mr A’s decision that DNA testing is necessary. This was something Mr A decided was necessary, and decided to discuss with the children.
40. Our Principles for Remedy explain organisations should recognise and put things right when they have made a mistake. They also say that organisations should take account of the way in which a person has contributed to their own injustice.
41. We recognise Mr A could have been told more quickly that CMS were unlikely to assist him with DNA testing. He did intend for the children to know he wanted them to have DNA testing. His complaint is that despite the discussions he had, he still has not been able to have that testing. He asked us to look at whether CMS could help with this. We cannot ask them to do that, but this shows he still intends to access DNA testing, if he finds a practical way to do so.
42. Whether or not he was able to get testing, Mr A did choose to tell the children this is what he thought should happen. His concern is that, despite believing he would be able to access genetic testing, he has not been able to get that test. We would not expect CMS to accept responsibility for the wider emotional impact of something a person has decided to do, and may still undertake.
43. .Whether or not he was able to get testing, it was Mr A’s choice that he would like the children to undergo DNA testing, and his choice to tell them this.
44. Mr A shared evidence showing he had been signed off work due to his mental health around the same time as he asked CMS about DNA testing. He had begun an undergraduate degree in 2018 and in 2023 his mental health prevented him progressing the modules that still needed to be completed.
45. We appreciate he is concerned this would not have been so difficult if not for CMS. The evidence he shared shows he was signed off his studies in early August 2023, before he contacted CMS about DNA testing. There were a number of other periods when Mr A was signed off his studies due before August 2023.
46. Having considered this evidence, we do not see we can link the difficulties Mr A tells us he had completing his studies to CMS’ actions. It would always be difficult to say there was a direct link between CMS’ actions and a person’s mental health, however looking at what we know in this case we can see Mr A contacted CMS when he had already been signed off his studies. None of the evidence we have shows a direct link between Mr A’s contact with CMS and the time it took for his mental health to improve.
47. We appreciate the events that follow from Mr A being told he could expect CMS help to get DNA tests only to then be told CMS would not give that help could have been upsetting for Mr A and damaged his relationship with the children. Having carefully considered the evidence we have, we cannot show there is a direct link between what he was told and the larger injustices he claimed.
48. CMS did recognise this had caused him stress and inconvenience, and as well as apologising it paid a £150 financial remedy.
49. This is in line with what we would expect CMS to pay to address the avoidable stress and inconvenience we can see it caused, in line with level 2 of our Guidance on Financial Remedy. We cannot attribute the larger difficulties Mr A had to CMS, so would only expect it to pay a remedy for distress and inconvenience.
50. We appreciate Mr A feels there were significant mistakes in the handling of his case and CMS have not provided the service that should be expected. Mr A said CMS need to improve its service because of this.
51. We also note the question he took to CMS was an unusual one for CMS to receive. Parents who ring up asking if they can receive help to get DNA testing should be told this is something CMS can do, but it is not possible to know without making looking at the details of their circumstance. It would not be possible to know whether a parent could be offered DNA testing based on a single call to CMS as, based on CMS’ guidance, advice would need to be provided by the CMS specialist staff who look paternity disputes. Both parents would usually need to be consulted so CMS can understand what evidence there may be to show who is the paying parent.
52. CMS’ guidance already says requests to offer DNA testing would need to be sent to its specialist, and CMS explained this is what its staff are told in training. We appreciate it is disappointing that when Mr A called he was given the wrong advice, but as the CMS guidance already reflects what should happen, we consider this was a result of human error rather than a systemic problem that needs to be addressed.
53. Having carefully considered what Mr A told us about his complaint and all the evidence he gave, we have concluded that CMS does not need to take further action to address this.
54. We appreciate he had avoidable stress and inconvenience as a result of being told he could expect CMS to help and then to be told this was not the case and is frustrated at still not having been able to confirmed DNA testing.