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

    CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

    CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

    Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

    Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

    Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

    Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

    Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

    Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

    Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

    NEWS
    The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
    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
    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
    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
    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
    back-to-top-scroll