header-logo header-logo

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

Maintenance matters

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

    Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

    Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

    Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

    Mishcon de Reya—trainees

    Mishcon de Reya—trainees

    Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

    Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

    Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

    Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

    NEWS
    LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
    The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
    Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
    An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
    Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
    back-to-top-scroll