Periodical payments for children

General considerations

Most child maintenance is determined under the statutory scheme established by the Child Support Act 1991 (as amended). All new applications are dealt with by the Child Maintenance Service (CMS), with existing cases to migrate to the gross maintenance formula introduced by the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008.

Under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) and the equivalent provisions under the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (CPA 2004), the court has the power to make an order for periodical payments, including secured periodical payments, to a party for the benefit of a child of the family. Those powers are severely restricted by the statutory scheme in cases where the relevant children are the biological or adoptive children of the prospective payer. There are limited circumstances in which the courts retain jurisdiction to make an order, including, for example, an order made by consent or an order where one of the parents is habitually resident overseas.

See Practice Notes: Child support—respective jurisdictions of the Child Maintenance Service and the court, Child support—procedure, Child support—disputed paternity

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Family News

Cafcass guidance on conflicting assessments in public law cases

The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) has published new guidance for local authorities and Cafcass for cases where the views of the children’s guardian (and therefore their independent advice to the court) and the assessment of a local authority social worker and/or the independent reviewing officer fundamentally differ on the final care plan or interim arrangements for a child. The guidance applies to all children in care and supervision order applications under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 and deprivation of liberty applications. The guidance sets out the process that should be followed at any point during proceedings where a divergence arises and should be completed before final recommendations are submitted to court. The guidance requires that a pre-final hearing meeting be convened to identify and document the points of difference for the court. It includes suggestions for structuring the pre-final hearing meeting, a template agenda and a template for sharing the agreed rationale with the court. The guidance is not intended to be used to agree a joint position, rather to make sure that recommendations to court include a clear explanation about why the children’s guardian, the local authority social worker and/or the independent reviewing officer have reached fundamentally different positions. The explanation must set out what the points of difference are so that the judge in the case can better understand these. It remains for the court to decide what is safe and in the best interests of the child.

View Family by content type :

Popular documents