Child Support in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Huxley v Child Support Offices
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 14 Dic 1999

    It is important to bear in mind that the child support scheme is not simply a method for the State to recoup part of its benefit expenditure from the absent parent. It is important to bear in mind that the child support scheme is not simply a method for the State to recoup part of its benefit expenditure from the absent parent.

    The child support system has elements of private and public law but fundamentally it is a nationalised system for assessing and enforcing an obligation which each parent owes primarily to the child. The child support system has elements of private and public law but fundamentally it is a nationalised system for assessing and enforcing an obligation which each parent owes primarily to the child.

  • Farley v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (No 2); Farley v Child Support Agency
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 12 Jul 2004

    Since "the liable person" means "a person who is liable to make payments of child support maintenance" (section 33(1)(a)), how could the magistrates' court be satisfied that child support maintenance has become payable by such a person if it cannot enquire into whether the person against whom the liability order is sought was liable to make the payments in the first place?

  • Miller v Miller (Short Marriage: Clean break)
    • House of Lords
    • 24 May 2006

    This element of fairness reflects the fact that to greater or lesser extent every relationship of marriage gives rise to a relationship of interdependence. When the marriage ends fairness requires that the assets of the parties should be divided primarily so as to make provision for the parties' housing and financial needs, taking into account a wide range of matters such as the parties' ages, their future earning capacity, the family's standard of living, and any disability of either party.

  • R (on the Application of MA (Pakistan) and Others) v Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) and Another
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 07 Jul 2016

    However, the fact that the child has been in the UK for seven years would need to be given significant weight in the proportionality exercise for two related reasons: first, because of its relevance to determining the nature and strength of the child's best interests; and second, because it establishes as a starting point that leave should be granted unless there are powerful reasons to the contrary.

  • ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
    • Supreme Court
    • 01 Feb 2011

    This is not, it is agreed, a factor of limitless importance in the sense that it will prevail over all other considerations. It is a factor, however, that must rank higher than any other. It is not merely one consideration that weighs in the balance alongside other competing factors. Where the best interests of the child clearly favour a certain course, that course should be followed unless countervailing reasons of considerable force displace them.

  • Re B-S (Children)
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 17 Set 2013

    Second ( Re B para 77), as required by section 1(3)(g) of the 1989 Act and section 1(6) of the 2002 Act, the court "must" consider all the options before coming to a decision. As Lady Hale said (para 198) it is "necessary to explore and attempt alternative solutions". That will depend upon the circumstances of the particular cases. They range, in principle, from the making of no order at one end of the spectrum to the making of an adoption order at the other.

See all results
Legislation
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT