Family Law Hub

Child Support

Latest updates

  • This is the first of two articles concerning challenging a nil assessment by the Child Maintenance Service. This article covers two potential routes for applying for variation: income not yet taken into account, and diversion of income. Next week, we will consider two further reasons: unearned income and notional income from assets. News, 03/10/2019, free
  • the HCCH Convention of 23 November 2007 on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance (“Child Support Convention”) enters into force for Kazakhstan, following the deposit of its instrument of accession on 6 June 2017. News, 14/06/2019, free
  • Court-ordered contact arrangements had broken down, and so the father lost credit for shared care and the Child Maintenance Service increased the amount of his weekly payments. He appealed against this. AI Poole QC, Judge of the Upper Tribunal, understood the father's frustration but refused the appeal. To do otherwise in this situation would not be in the interests of the child. Judgment, 31/05/2019, free
  • The father appealed with regard to the meaning of "latest available tax year", so far as it applied to HMRC's provision of his income to the Child Maintenance Service for its child support maintenance calculations. The Secretary of State and the HMRC submitted that, as the father was a company director, he was required to file a self-assessment return (SAR), notwithstanding that PAYE information had been provided, and the HMRC could not provide a figure for a year for which a SAR had not yet been filed. Nicholas Wikeley, Judge of the Upper Tribunal, preferred those submissions and the father's appeal was dismissed. Judgment, 31/05/2019, free
  • Upper Tribunal Judge Ward allowed the appeal by the non-resident father. who was applying for a supersession on the basis that his daughter had ceased to be a qualifying "child", being no longer in full-time non-advanced education. The First-tier Tribunal had made an error of law in refusing the application on the grounds that child benefit was still being paid. Judgment, 11/04/2019, free

Latest know-how

Latest training

Latest sources

Copyright 

Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.

Disclaimer

The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.

Bookmark this item