header-logo header-logo

Maintenance matters

31 January 2019 / Matilda Kingham
Issue: 7826 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

Matilda Kingham provides an overview of the diversionary tactics employed to avoid paying child maintenance

 

  • Primary jurisdiction.
  • Unearned income.
  • Challenging an assessment.
  •  

    Primary jurisdiction in respect of child maintenance lies with the child maintenance service (CMS, formerly known as the Child Support Agency). When an application is made to the CMS, the CMS will consider the income of the paying parent (known as the non-resident parent) and apply a formula to this income to produce an assessment.

    This calculation is relatively straightforward where the non-resident parent earns income in a conventional fashion such as via PAYE. However, only a non-resident parent’s earned income is taken into consideration as the Department for Work and Pensions feel that ‘the majority of people […] only have one income stream’.

    As a result, the CMS struggles to deal with more complex income structures, particularly those where the paying parent is self-employed and/or receives income by way of dividend or rental income. Unearned taxable income is not automatically taken into consideration by the CMS when it makes

    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

    Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

    Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

    Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

    Druces—Lisa Cardy

    Druces—Lisa Cardy

    Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

    Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

    Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

    Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

    NEWS
    The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
    Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
    Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
    Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
    In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
    back-to-top-scroll