CF v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and CG (CSM)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Gray |
| Judgment Date | 02 August 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] UKUT 276 (AAC) |
| Subject Matter | Child support,Child support - other,Gray,P |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Published date | 28 September 2018 |
| Date | 02 August 2018 |
CF v SSWP & CG (CSM) [2018] UKUT 276 (AAC)
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Appeal No. CCS/2771/2017
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER
Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Gray
This appeal by the claimant succeeds.
District Judge Cooper having granted permission to appeal on 6 September
2017, in accordance with the provisions of section 12(2)(b)(i) of the Tribunals,
Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 I set aside the decision of the First-tier
Tribunal sitting at Norwich and made on 30 May 2017 under reference SC
142/17/00058 and remit the case to a freshly constituted First Tier Tribunal for re-
hearing.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1. In this child support case the appellant is the father of Larry, who is in his
teens. Larry’s mother is the second respondent and she is in receipt of
child benefit in respect of him. I will refer to Larry’s parents as the father and
the mother.
2. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is the first respondent, but I
will refer to the body that has from time to time been administering child
support maintenance as the agency.
3. Child support maintenance in this case is based on the 2012 statutory
scheme.
The decision under appeal and the issue for the FTT
4. The issue for the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) was as to the extent to which each
parent had the day to day care of Larry. The father’s argument was that he
had equal care with the mother, and in those circumstances the agency
should not have accepted her application for child maintenance.
5. Whilst the father was contending that he and the mother provided equal care,
and the tribunal accepted at paragraph 7 of the statement of reasons that
care was equally divided ‘in terms of the time spent with each parent’ it also
considered the fact that he had previously paid child maintenance for Larry
under the 2003 scheme, and that the mother received child benefit.
6. The District Tribunal Judge granted permission to appeal on the basis that the
judge may have failed properly to apply the somewhat different provisions of
the new scheme, and in particular the use of the receipt of child benefit as the
determinative factor where care was found to be provided equally.
To continue reading
Request your trial
1 cases
-
MR v (1) Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and (2) LM
...the regulation is worded ‘seems to put the proverbial cart before the horse’: CF v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and CG [2018] UKUT 276 (AAC) at There is no definition of ‘day to day care’ in the Act or the Regulations. 8. There was a definition in previous versions of the scheme......