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

    Ward Hadaway—19 promotions

    Ward Hadaway—19 promotions

    19 promotions across national offices, including two new partners

    Brabners—Ruth Hargreaves

    Brabners—Ruth Hargreaves

    Partner promoted to head of corporate team

    Slater Heelis—Liam Hall, Jordan Bear & Joe Madigan

    Slater Heelis—Liam Hall, Jordan Bear & Joe Madigan

    Chester office expansion accelerates with triple appointment

    NEWS
    As AI chatbots increasingly provide legal and commercial advice, English law is beginning to confront who should bear responsibility when automated systems get things wrong
    Businesses are facing a ‘dramatic rise in prosecution risks’ as sweeping reforms to corporate criminal liability come into force, expanding the net of who can be held responsible for wrongdoing inside organisations
    The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has reignited debate over what exactly counts as the ‘conduct of litigation’ in modern legal practice
    A controversial High Court financial remedies ruling has reignited debate over secrecy, non-disclosure and fairness in divorce proceedings involving hidden wealth
    Britain’s deferred prosecution agreement regime is undergoing a significant shift, with prosecutors placing renewed emphasis on corporate cooperation, reform and early self-reporting
    back-to-top-scroll