MR v (1) Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and (2) LM
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Jacobs |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] UKUT 340 (AAC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Subject Matter | Child support,Child support - maintenance assessments/calculations,Jacobs,E |
| Date | 12 October 2018 |
| Published date | 03 November 2018 |
MR V SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WORK AND PENSIONS AND LM [2018] UKUT 340 (AAC)
UPPER TRIBUNAL CASE NO: CCS/1248/2018
1
DECISION OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER)
This decision is given under section 11 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement
Act 2007:
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal under reference SC900/17/00024, made on
31 October 2017 at Chester, did not involve the making of an error on a point of
law.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1. The appellant before the Upper Tribunal is the father of Seren and Oliver;
the respondent is their mother. Both parents are involved in their care. The
mother applied for child support maintenance from their father. Was their father
their non-resident parent for the purposes of the child support legislation? The
First-tier Tribunal decided that he was and I have found no error of law in its
decision.
A. How the child support scheme deals with parents who both care for
their child
2. The basic structure of the Child Support Act 1991 assumes that a child is
cared for by one parent. That parent is the parent with care; the other is the non-
resident parent. If the child doesn’t have a non-resident parent, the scheme
doesn’t apply: that is the effect of section 3(1) of the Act. The scheme then
provides adjustments for different arrangements. One difference occurs when
both parents are involved in the care of their child. That is what has happened
here. It can have two effects. One effect is that there is a dispute about which
parent is the non-resident one. The Act treats this as a special case (under
section 42), which is governed by regulation 50 of the Child Support Maintenance
Calculation Regulations 2012 (SI No 2677). The other effect occurs when the
amount of the non-resident parent’s liability is being calculated. This can only
arise if there is a non-resident parent. If there isn’t, the child support scheme
does not apply. When it arises, it is governed by paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 to the
Act and regulations 46 and 47 of the 2012 Regulations. Under those regulations
only overnight care is relevant; under regulation 50, it is day to day care that
matters.
B. Regulation 50
What the regulation says
3. This is what regulation 50 provides:
To continue reading
Request your trial