CMS 50/50

[LHTaff]

New member and apologies if this has been covered.

I was far to lenient in our divorce and Decree Absolute was issued in May. As part of the settlement I agreed to pay £300 a month towards the children. Both children are 50/50 in terms of time and costs. The ex gets the child benefit too.

The £300 a month was an agreed court order for 12 months. When that comes to an end, will I be expected to pay any CMS?

Like I say, I can prove the 50/50 split in terms of time and also financial records.

 

[Roblox]

I think you have to be able to prove that you are doing as much of the parenting. Including appointments etc.

I think even at 50 / 50 you may have to pay something but I don't think it would be much.

 

[Roblox]

Child Maintenance when you have an equal share in parenting

Even if your children share their time equally between you and your ex-partner, you may still be liable to pay or receive child maintenance. Find out more.

watson-thomas.co.uk

 

[LHTaff]

System is fundamentally flawed of that is the case isn’t it. Maybe I should not tell her I don’t plan to continue the court order and put a CMS claim in myself.

 

[phil105]

I have spoken to CMS whom acknowledged that their understanding of the regulation is incorrect however since there appears to be a culture/training issue they appear to be unwilling to change the internal policies and procedures and insist that I contact my local MP. This has been happening over the last 5 year but may be longer.

I will keep trying to challenge them and have written a letter of complaint for a formal response.

I have a detailed explanation below but I hope you may have some contacts that I can liaise with to assist them in following the regulations correctly?

Explanation of the breach in The Child Support Maintenance Calculation Regulation 2012

If you have a court order that saying both parents have equal cared and neither parent has more or less day-to-day care of the child then "Special Cases" is applied under "The special Cases in The Child Support Maintenance Calculation Regulation 2012, Chapter 4, Clause 50" https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/2677/regulation/50/made

The interruption of the regulations by CMS is incorrect as they apply the following clause out of context as follows: "Clause 50 (3) Where the applicant is receiving child benefit in respect of the qualifying child the applicant is assumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to be providing day to day care to a greater extent than any other person."

CMS make the assumption that if someone receives Child Benefit they are referred to a the "Primary Carer" or "Receiving Parent". They ignore the rest of the sentence that says " to be providing day to day care to a greater extent than any other person." which is not correct. I have spoken to CMS and explained this and they agree that I am correct and they claim this will be addressed and raised. The man I spoke to was called Joff (Team Leader) who was very understanding on the 7-Feb-2024 @ 11:10 whom confirmed this will be addressed and raised. I should point out that the term "Primary Carer" has not existed in the family courts for over 10 years. However, my hope is this will be addressed and people will not find themselves in the same position.

 

[LHTaff]

I have spoken to CMS whom acknowledged that their understanding of the regulation is incorrect however since there appears to be a culture/training issue they appear to be unwilling to change the internal policies and procedures and insist that I contact my local MP. This has been happening over the last 5 year but may be longer.

I will keep trying to challenge them and have written a letter of complaint for a formal response.

I have a detailed explanation below but I hope you may have some contacts that I can liaise with to assist them in following the regulations correctly?

Explanation of the breach in The Child Support Maintenance Calculation Regulation 2012

If you have a court order that saying both parents have equal cared and neither parent has more or less day-to-day care of the child then "Special Cases" is applied under "The special Cases in The Child Support Maintenance Calculation Regulation 2012, Chapter 4, Clause 50" https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/2677/regulation/50/made

The interruption of the regulations by CMS is incorrect as they apply the following clause out of context as follows: "Clause 50 (3) Where the applicant is receiving child benefit in respect of the qualifying child the applicant is assumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to be providing day to day care to a greater extent than any other person."

CMS make the assumption that if someone receives Child Benefit they are referred to a the "Primary Carer" or "Receiving Parent". They ignore the rest of the sentence that says " to be providing day to day care to a greater extent than any other person." which is not correct. I have spoken to CMS and explained this and they agree that I am correct and they claim this will be addressed and raised. The man I spoke to was called Joff (Team Leader) who was very understanding on the 7-Feb-2024 @ 11:10 whom confirmed this will be addressed and raised. I should point out that the term "Primary Carer" has not existed in the family courts for over 10 years. However, my hope is this will be addressed and people will not find themselves in the same position.

Many thanks Phil. I’ve also seen this on their website now.

 

[Ash]

Once the year comes to an end it does come under the CMS. They usually ask to see a copy of the order, to determined whether it is full shared care or not. For example if the ordered times are say with you from school on the Wednesday until Friday morning (ie two midweek nights) they could say that because your time only starts from the end of the school day, they are in the care of the Mother slightly more of the time as if they had to leave school early or due to sickness they would go to her during the day (unless there's a clause in the order that says otherwise).

It's why I usually suggest having the times ordered from 9am Wednesday to 9am Friday (for example) and 9am Friday to 9am Monday (for the week-end. My solicitor refused to do that in my order! And said "we don't do that". It was too late to change solicitors at that stage.

 

[LHTaff]

For 18 months we’ve had an informal agreement between us. I had them week one but kids are with her Weds & Thurs then she has them week 2 and they are with me Weds & Thurs. Works out 2-2-3, 2-2-3 and works really well. So can’t see how anyone could say it isn’t shared time and care.

 

[Ash]

CMS will look at specific handover times and if there's an hour more in her favour ........... So it's not in a court order? If there's no court order they'll just believe whatever the Mother tells them.

 

[LHTaff]

Handovers are always the same and align with school drop off and pick ups.