header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
02 August 2007 / Danielle Messenger
Issue: 7284 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

Taking a stand

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Unusual family circumstances require flexible enforcement policies, says Danielle Messenger

On 25 June 2007 Michael Cox, father of five, was sentenced to 42 days’ imprisonment for non-payment of child maintenance through the Child Support Agency (CSA), with arrears of £43,000 (unreported). Earlier in the year he received a suspended sentence to be triggered if he failed to make maintenance payments.

INFLEXIBILITY

This case demonstrates the inflexibility of the regulations in the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000. There is no mechanism for the CSA to deal with shared care arrangements. In each case the CSA needs to label one parent as the “parent with care” and the other the “non-resident parent”. The CSA regulations state that “if care is shared equally, the non-resident parent is the one who is not getting child benefit”. This means that a non-resident parent sharing care of the children loses out repeatedly. They will have identical costs in providing a home for the children, but will not receive any financial assistance from the state and will also

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
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll