Recent high court case where unmarried mum was awarded maintenance despite 50/50 split of care

[NoMoreLimbo]

Hi all.

I have name changed as my ex is lurking on here.

Pretty much what the subject says; a family therapist recently mentioned to me that there had been a recently published high court case where an unmarried mum was awarded child maintenance despite the care of the children being split 50/50. Did anyone read about it? I am asking as my ex is pushing for 50/50 care but not out of love for the DC's but as a means of not having to give any ££ to 'me'. There is a long back story, but we are financially polar opposites and he built up pension and nest eggs whilst I didn't as looked after DD's.

I am just trying to find precedents relating to unmarried parents, where the lower income parent received child maintenance despite 50/50 care.

There was a recent case - CF v Sec State Work and Pensions and CG (CSM) [2018] UKUT 276 (AAC) (2nd August 2018). The day to day care provided by each parent must be evaluated on all the evidence - more than just a counting of days and nights. Involves judgment in respect of parenting tasks and responsibilities resulting in a reasoned decision as to which parent provides day to day care to a greater extent.

Link to the full judgment assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5badd33ae5274a3e070ae930/CCS_2771_2017-00.pdf

Thanks Collaborate I will have a read through this.

It was not this case the Family Therapist referred to though. I am trawling the internet to try and find it.

This is standard in America.
Most states are now 50/50 however where there is a discrepancy in earnings there will be payments to the poorer parent.

Taylor22 that sounds a lot fairer. In England I think the 50/50 care is often used by a previously absent parent as a way to not have to pay child maintenance to the other parent.

I’m not sure the family courts really like 50/50 care. They like to see a resident parent who receives whatever money due for any child. The courts put the child first and having a nominated home with day to day school arrangements being straightforward are more important than parent sensitivities and wants. The child should see the other parent but you don’t have to agree to 50/50 care if it’s detrimrntal to the child. Therefore if your child is ordinarily resident with you, spends more time with you, and their life is settled in terms of getting to school, friendships etc, then try and keep the status quo because it benefits your child. The courts know the ruses to avoid payments too.

What happens in the USA isn’t relevant here.

See the attached.