Spotlight
Court of Protection Practice 2024
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articlesrss feeds
A seismic change in ethos and practice
Caroline Bowden, a member of the Private Family Law Early Resolution Working Group which first examined what changes were needed, looks at the effect of the revised rules on everyone working in family...
Debunking the myth about sensitivity in drug and alcohol testing
*** SPONSORED CONTENT***With all the news about deep fakes, authentication and transparency in the news at the moment, Cansford Laboratories Reporting Scientist Jayne Hazon has examined a recent...
New Family Presiding Judges Appointed
The Lady Chief Justice, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, has announced the appointment of two Family Presiding Judges.Mr Justice MacDonald has been appointed for a period of four years,...
Victims given greater access to justice through legal aid reform
Innocent people who have suffered miscarriages of justice, personal harm or injury are among those who will benefit from upcoming changes to legal aid means testing coming into effect this...
Obligations and responsibilities – the mosquito in the bedroom
Stephen Wildblood KC, 3PB BarristersLuke Nelson, 3PB BarristersWhatever happened to ‘obligations and responsibilities’ in s 25(2) MCA 1973?  Why is it that all of the other words in...
View all articles
Authors

The Child Maintenance Service: a step backwards

Sep 29, 2018, 23:27 PM
Family Law, child maintenance service, parents, children, ‘variation’ provisions application, capital assets
Title : The Child Maintenance Service: a step backwards
Slug : the-child-maintenance-service-a-step-backwards
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Check Copyright Text : No
Date : Jun 12, 2018, 04:30 AM
Article ID : 117206

Jonathan's article, featured in the June 2018 issue of Family Law ([2018] Fam Law 734), highlights some of the shortcomings in the Child Maintenance Service. In particular, the decision to omit from the revised ‘variation’ provisions application of an 8% notional return from capital assets outside of the NRP’s main home (the ‘assets’ ground for variation) and the ‘lifestyle inconsistent with stated means’ ground. NRPs who are capital rich/income poor, have elaborate tax avoidance schemes in place, or receive a large amounts of income in ‘cash’ are once again paying little or no child maintenance.  Whilst highlighting to the specialist professionals the fact that these provisions are omitted, Jonathan implores the government to urgently reinstate these provisions so that injustice for the children of unmarried parents no longer prevails. 


The full version of this article appears in the June 2018 issue of Family Law

Find out more or request a free 1-week trial of Family Law journal. Please quote: 100482.
Categories :
  • Articles
Tags :
childcare
Provider : 29 Bedford Row
Product Bucket :
Load more comments
Comment by from