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.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Family News

Need to undertake holistic risk assessment. Section 31 of the Children Act 1989—Care orders. Adoption and Children Act 2002 (Re H)

Local Government analysis: This Court of Appeal judgment provides a reminder to judge’s when making final care orders (or declining to do so as in this case) of the need to undertake a careful and holistic risk assessment within any final judgment. The judgment is a clear reminder of the need to assess risk with reference to the facts and as set against the welfare checklist and to properly analyse all parts of the evidence heard and illustrate this in the judgement. The court determined that the evaluation required a careful analysis of the evidence which regrettably was not carried out in this case. Written by Hannah Markham KC, head of team at 36 Family.

Post adoption contact—where are we now? (Re S (Placement Order Contact))

Family analysis: The Court of Appeal judgment in Re S (Placement Order Contact) carefully considers the court’s approach to contact between siblings at the placement for adoption stage. There has been a shift in recent years with a great deal of research as to the potential advantages to adopted children of maintaining some sort of direct contact with their birth family. That being said, on the ground it remains unusual for orders to be made under section 26 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (ACA 2002) for direct contact, with proposals in final care plans often being for indirect or letterbox contact. The Court of Appeal makes clear that in each case where placement orders are made, there needs to be a bespoke analysis of the future contact arrangements, in order to meet the complex and life-long needs of children who are to be placed for adoption. Written by Gemma Adams, associate solicitor at Dawson Cornwell LLP.

Family weekly highlights—17 July 2025

This week's edition of the Family weekly highlights includes analysis of the Supreme Court decision in Standish v Standish on matrimonialisation and the sharing principle. Recent judgments on international relocation under the Children Act 1989, care orders and the division of assets in accordance with the sharing principle are also considered.

Monumental Supreme Court decision on matrimonialisation and sharing principle (Standish v Standish)

Family analysis: The Supreme Court’s much-anticipated judgment confirms unequivocally that the sharing principle does not apply to non-matrimonial property. Sharing of matrimonial property will usually be 50:50, though there may be a departure from equal division where justified. Non-matrimonial property typically has either a pre-marital origin, or, where it is received during the currency of the marriage, an external source (eg an inheritance). Title to an asset is expressly not determinative as to whether that asset is or is not matrimonial. Though non-matrimonial property may become matrimonial (ie ‘matrimonialisation’) this will depend on how the parties have been dealing with the asset and whether, over time, they have been treating that asset as shared between them. The concept of matrimonialisation is to be applied neither ‘widely’ nor ‘narrowly’ (contrary to what the Court of Appeal had held)—again, the enquiry should focus on how the parties have dealt with the asset. Where an asset is transferred from one spouse to another with the intention to save tax (as had occurred in the case), this will not normally show that the asset is being treated as shared. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the decision to dismiss the wife’s appeal, though it did not wholly agree with the Court of Appeal’s reasoning. Pursuant to that decision (made on the sharing basis) the wife would be provided with circa £25m of the total assets figure of circa £132.6m, being half of the matrimonial assets figure of £50.48m. David Wilkinson, solicitor at Slater Heelis, considers the judgment.