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

High Court judgment demonstrates usefulness of section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 in Schedule 1 claims (Re P (A Child) (Financial Provision))

Family analysis: In this Schedule 1 case the mother received, for her son’s benefit: a housing fund of nearly £1m (the property to be held on trust); child maintenance (including ‘HECSA’/carer’s allowance) until completion of his first degree; and lump sums in respect of his capital needs and her own substantial liabilities (chiefly relating to her unpaid legal fees). The father (whose resources could be measured in the ‘tens of millions of pounds’) had sought to prejudice the mother’s claims via transferring his valuable shares to family members, who then transferred the same into a trust structure (settled under Czech law). A further onwards transfer was then made of the trust’s assets into a Liechtenstein foundation. Inferences were drawn by the court in respect of the level of the father’s wealth, and specifically as to the value of the transferred shares. Detailed findings were made against him in respect of the identified transactions, which had been the focus of the mother’s section 423 application. Although a section 423(2) order was not actually made, the application was adjourned pending the father’s compliance with the award, with security in the sum of £600,000 also ordered, alongside a continuation of the freezing orders made earlier in the proceedings. David Wilkinson, solicitor at Slater Heelis, considers the issues.

View Family by content type :

Popular documents