Child Maintenance for Joint Physical Custody

[ccff]

Hi there. I'm asking on behalf of a friend as they are very concerned about their situation. They have a young child with an ex-partner who is the 'primary' parent and receives the child maintenance, but during a dispute, their previously respected agreement to pay equally for their child's life and not involve the CMS has been broken and the ex has said that they want maintenance. Friend has the child at least three nights a week, but four during school holidays, and whenever the ex goes away (a couple of weeks at a time). Friend pays considerably more to child's life, eg clothes and shoes, clubs and activities, and they do 100% of the picking up and dropping off every week. Child goes on holiday with friend, friend has much more contact with school, and child is registered at doctor's etc in both places. Friend has Parental Responsibility, but since ex claims the child benefit, it seems that the ex is entitled to a relatively small but still sizeable contribution to their half of the week. Friend is completely shocked and angry. Ex claims lots of benefits already for other children, and friend helps them out a lot. Is this legitimate and will this go ahead? If so, will the friend have to pay for all of the time their agreement stood? What are the chances of CMS deciding that the parents share care equally and child maintenance isn't relevant? Thank you.

The CMS will make a decision based on the number of nights over the course of the year. If both parents have an exactly 50:50 arrangement, no maintenance is due.

If the parent has the child 3 nights in term term and 4 in holidays then it won't be a 50:50 arrangement. There will therefore be a reduction in the amount of maintenance due but maintenance will be payable.

Not sure how a child can be registered with two doctors. I assume that's a mistake.

Child maintenance is the bare minimum to raise a child -who is entitled to have a similar standard of living with both parents. If your friend makes more money than the other parent then they should be paying maintenance.

It has nothing to do with who is earning more and not much to do with a similar standard of care with each parent either. If the parent with care is on £1M a year and the NRP on benefits, the NRP still has to pay.

So your friend is shocked they (he?) maybe obliged to pay maintenance? Why? Does the fact that the mother claims benefits mean your friend thought their child's needs would be solely met by the state?

Come on titchy - they have an almost 50/50 arrangement and had previously agreed between them the CMS would not be involved. In fact it even says the other parent receives child maintenance - so it's already being paid.

It doesn't say the mother receives maintenance at all - just alludes to benefits. And the friend doesn't appear to have the child the majority of the time so they should be paying.

If friend has to pay maintenance through CMS they'd be under no obligation to continue to buy what they're currently buying although the child will of course be the one ta suffers

Third and fourth line - "They have a young child with an ex-partner who is the 'primary' parent and receives the child maintenance"

I assumed they meant child benefit...

Thanks for the replies. Child is registered at two doctor's, but one is the secondary place (think uni students). Friend has worked out that in the past 12 months they have had the child for 179 nights give or take, so really close to 50:50. They have an informal arrangement where friend pays for child's uniform, transport, meals, activities, and ex claims the child benefit. Friend doesn't earn much either so it's not like it's unfair - in fact it leans in favour of the ex. On top of that, now friend has to hand over more money? Doesn't seem right.

Through the CMS the amount payable will be reduced by three sevenths because he has the child approximately three sevenths of the time.

I accept that this is how it is but it does seem really unfair. Just say it were the friend who could claim, the ex would have to pay a simular amount! It seems common sense that this arrangement is already fair.

Well obviously the mother isn't happy with the current arrangement for some reason... perhaps your friend isn't quite as generous as they make out.

As I said earlier, your friend is perfectly at liberty to just pay through the CMS and not pay for anything else.

The CMS figure would be assuming that the other costs were split proportionally. If the CMS becomes involved then he'll just have to agree to go halves on the other costs rather than paying for all of them if he can't afford it all.

I've not specified who is who in this arrangement. The dispute that provoked this has nothing to do with money - the ex was perfectly happy with that side of things. Okay, thank you for your help.

You can change my he's to she's 🙂