header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Going separate ways

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All Rights Reserved.
27 April 2018 / David Burrows
Issue: 7790 / Categories: Features , Child law , Family
printer mail-detail
nlj_7790_burrows_carousel

David Burrows laments the unnecessary & harmful complexities of the child support scheme

  • Why a child support scheme and how has it developed over the years?
  • Assessment of child support maintenance by a formula, developed by departure (now variation) directions.
  • What of the rights of the child for whom payments are made?

On 3 April 1993 the Child Support Agency opened its doors for business. 25 years later, it has undergone three major amendments of the original Child Support Act 1991(CSA 1991), namely in 1995, 2000 and 2008. It has had various shifts of name and nominal administrator (under the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008 the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission took over from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, only to cede the work back to the Secretary of State, who has since then worked through Child Support Agency (again) and now Child Maintenance Service).

It remains technically and legislatively as dense a scheme as ever. Most parents are unrepresented, legal aid is rare (eg for the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Partner appointed as head of residential conveyancing for England

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

Specialist firm enhances corporate healthcare practice with partner appointment

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Gold on Awaab’s Law & digital divorce
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
NLJ this week: AI in the dock—courts need literacy, not fear
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Landlords lose their upward climb
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
NLJ this week: Privy Council undresses the ‘shareholder rule’
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
NLJ this week: Regan’s case of the year
Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School and the Frenkel Topping Group—AKA The insider—crowns Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP as his case of 2025 in his latest column for NLJ. The High Court’s decision—that non-authorised employees cannot conduct litigation, even under supervision—has sent shockwaves through the profession. Regan calls it the year’s defining moment for civil practitioners and reproduces a ‘cut-out-and-keep’ summary of key rulings from Mr Justice Sheldon
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll