Guest viewing is limited

over half the care, but now issue with "primnary carer" status

D

DIDDY

Well-known member
Member
Hello.

I finally got a hold of CMS today (only an hour on hold :confused: and the opearator confirmed that next year I will have my son for 183 nights a year, tipping me into Band D and presumably no maintenance to pay.

But before I started popping the champers, he explained that at that point (when I move into band D in the new year as per the court order) CMS would have to "open an investigation and contact child benefit to establish who is the pimrary care giver". He also advised that I contact child benefit at the time.

I tried again and again to ask him what this meant, but he was so vauge that after about 8 attempts I gave up.

He did tell me that, even though I would at that time have overnights of well over the 175 a nights a year threshold, I would still have to pay the ex mainenance.
This was a surprise as I thought that once past 175 no more payments required.

Has anyone else heard of this "primary carer" status question, and how this might mean I still have to pay the ex despite have more than 175 over nights a year?

Thanks,
D.
 
Thanks, it explains that I might well have to prove that I have day to day care of him as well. I think !
 
DIDDY said:
Thanks, it explains that I might well have to prove that I have day to day care of him as well. I think !
Click to expand...
Have you provided the court order through the portal? If you haven’t already you should and ask for a mandatory reconsideration. Using the below when asking them to reconsider, it means that no child maintenance should be paid if shared care from the date of the court order not from the following year.

The Child Support Maintenance Calculation Regulations 2012

Decrease for shared care

46.—(1) This regulation and regulation 47 apply where the Secretary of State determines the number of nights which count for the purposes of the decrease in the amount of child support maintenance under paragraphs 7 and 8 of Schedule 1 to the 1991 Act(1).

(2) Subject to paragraph (3), the determination is to be based on the number of nights for which the non-resident parent is expected to have the care of the qualifying child overnight during the 12 months beginning with the effective date of the relevant calculation decision.
 
Hi.

Yes, the court order is specific and has been shared and there is no contesting of it from CMS - they themselves today confirmed that the banding would change to well over the 175 a nights a year threshold.

I was just confused as to what he added re Child Benefits. He was saying that even though I would be paying nothing as per the threshold, it would still be a matter for investigation into who is the main care provider. It just left me confused as all this time I thought the amount payable was defined by nights spent with me (and income etc).
 
I think it's been well covered across multiple threads on this site the an equal shared care arrangement doesn't mean much to CMS however there are often inconsistencies dependable on whom you speak to day to day from CMS as you'll get different stories. Their guidance is also misleading and contradictory to a certain extent.

What you have been told by CMS however is the horror story that a number of Dad's have been stuck with. They've fought hard to secure an equal shared care arrangement, even being awarded a "lives with" order only to find that they are still having to pay CMS because the mother is claiming the Child Benefit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top