Child Maintenance Decision Makers' Guide

What the DWP's own Child Maintenance Service guidance says, what changed on 18 August 2026, and how parents can use the guidance to challenge CMS decisions, shared-care findings, income decisions, enforcement action, Mandatory Reconsiderations and appeals.

What is the Child Maintenance Decision Makers' Guide?

The Child Maintenance Decision Makers' Guide, often shortened to CMDMG, is published by the Department for Work and Pensions.

GOV.UK describes it as:

It explains how Child Maintenance Service decision makers should approach many of the decisions made under the 2012 Child Maintenance Scheme.

It covers areas including:

• Maintenance calculations.
• Income.
• Historic and current income.
• Shared care.
• Court orders.
• Evidence.
• Variations.
• Mandatory Reconsiderations.
• Revisions and supersessions.
• Appeals.
• Collection.
• Arrears.
• Enforcement.
• Welfare of children.
• Discretionary decisions.

Major update — 18 August 2026

The official GOV.UK publication page was updated on 18 August 2026.

The update affected:

• Volume 1 — The Basic Principles, Chapters 3–16
• Volume 1 — Summary of Changes

The DWP's own Summary of Changes identifies the main amendment as:

Why the August 2026 change matters

The revised guidance makes an important distinction between:

CMDMG paragraph 11010 — court orders

The revised Chapter 11 guidance says that where a court order is produced, the decision maker should normally use it as the basis of the shared-care decision.

However, where there is evidence that the court order is not actually being followed, the decision maker must consider the other evidence.

This means CMS should not automatically treat either parent's statement as decisive merely because they said it first.

What evidence can show a court order is not being followed?

The revised guidance gives examples at paragraph 11011.

Evidence may include:

• Both parents agreeing that the order is not being followed.
• Recent evidence from a trusted and verified source.
• Information from a court.
• Evidence from a solicitor.
• Social Services evidence.
• CAFCASS evidence.
• Practical evidence concerning the parents' locations.
• Other evidence showing that ordered contact is improbable or has changed.

The key legal question — expected overnight care

The shared-care rules are based around the number of nights that the paying parent is expected to have overnight care during the relevant period.

The August 2026 CMDMG update reflects the approach taken in:

EA v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and SA (CSM) [2019] UKUT 149 (AAC) .

Previous shared care can still be evidence

Paragraph 11007 says that where there is no court order or agreement, CMS may consider whether a pattern of shared care was established during the previous 12 months or another suitable period.

A previous regular pattern can therefore help demonstrate what is reasonably expected to happen in future.

What counts as shared care?

Paragraph 11001 states that shared care applies where the paying parent provides overnight care for at least:

Where the shared-care rules apply, the maintenance calculation is reduced according to the relevant statutory band.

What counts as an overnight?

Paragraph 11003 explains that normally the qualifying child:

• stays at the same address as the paying parent; and
• is cared for by that parent.

Certain nights in places such as hospital or boarding school may potentially count where the child would otherwise have been in that parent's care.

Paragraph 11004 also confirms that care does not have to follow one particular weekly pattern.

It may occur:

• on different nights each week;
• in blocks;
• during school holidays;
• during longer periods of care.

CMS can sometimes use a period shorter than 12 months

The guidance recognises that using a full 12-month period may not always be appropriate.

This can matter where:

• A new court order has recently started.
• Contact arrangements recently changed.
• Overnight care has recently restarted.
• A previous arrangement has ended.
• The parents have agreed a shorter defined period.

If both parents agree about the number of nights

Paragraph 11006 says that if both parents agree about the number of shared-care nights:

This can be useful where both parents have provided CMS with the same figure but CMS continues asking for unnecessary additional evidence.

Parents disagree — but both figures fall in the same band

Paragraph 11008 deals with an important situation.

For example:

The guidance says that where both figures fall within the same shared-care band:

The precise disagreement does not affect the maintenance reduction in that situation.

Where the disagreement would change the shared-care band

Paragraph 11009 deals with cases where the parents' figures would result in different statutory reductions.

For example:

Those figures fall into different bands.

CMS may therefore request evidence from both parties.

Formal evidence can include:

• Current court orders.
• Written agreements.
• Solicitor correspondence.
• Social Services records.
• CAFCASS reports.

Other evidence can also be used

Paragraph 11012 says decision makers can consider other evidence showing the number of nights the parent is expected to care for the child.

Examples may include verified evidence from:

• schools;
• doctors;
• other independent professionals.

Less formal evidence may include:

• diaries;
• receipts;
• statements from friends;
• calendar records;
• messages arranging collections and returns;
• travel records;
• holiday bookings;
• photographs with reliable dates;
• other evidence supporting the care pattern.

CMS should look for common ground

Paragraph 11013 is particularly useful where both parents give different accounts.

For example:

Both parents still agree that Saturday overnight care occurs.

CMS can therefore identify that accepted amount as common ground.

Both parents agree shared care happens but disagree over the amount

Paragraph 11014 says decision makers should:

1. consider both parents' statements;
2. consider the evidence;
3. make a decision on the balance of probabilities.

Where there is insufficient evidence but both parents agree that shared care does occur, the regulations can allow CMS to assume:

This corresponds to 52 nights over a year and therefore reaches the first shared-care band.

Shared-care reductions

Equal overnight care is not automatically equal day-to-day care

Paragraph 11016 makes an important distinction.

Someone should therefore not automatically assume that 175 or more nights means CMS must conclude that both parents have equal day-to-day care for every purpose.

Night workers and shared care

The guidance also deals with parents working night shifts.

Paragraph 11015 indicates that a parent may still qualify for overnight care where, depending on the facts:

• The child stays overnight at the parent's address.
• The parent returns to that address before another night shift.
• The parent could return immediately in an emergency.

The guidance gives an example involving a hospital night worker.

By contrast, someone working away continuously for several weeks would not normally count nights when the child was not staying at the same address as them.

How to use the CMDMG in your own CMS case

Do not simply tell CMS:

Instead, build a structured argument.

1 Identify the CMS decision.

State the date, calculation and issue being challenged.

2 Identify the legislation.

For shared care this may include Regulation 46 of the Child Support Maintenance Calculation Regulations 2012.

3 Identify the CMDMG paragraph.

For example: 11009, 11010, 11012 or 11013.

4 Identify your evidence.

List the court order, CAFCASS evidence, school evidence, messages, travel records or other relevant material.

5 Explain what CMS actually did.

For example, did CMS accept one parent's statement without explaining why the other evidence was rejected?

6 Explain why that matters.

Show how properly considering the evidence could have changed the maintenance calculation.

7 State what you want CMS to do.

For example:

Example — challenging a shared-care decision

Using the CMDMG for Mandatory Reconsideration

A Mandatory Reconsideration should focus on the actual decision and the evidence.

Using the CMDMG at a First-tier Tribunal

The Decision Makers' Guide can help explain DWP's own approach, but there is an important legal distinction.

The strongest tribunal argument normally combines:

For a shared-care dispute this might include:

• Child Support Act 1991;
• Regulation 46;
• EA [2019] UKUT 149 (AAC);
• court orders;
• your evidence;
• CMDMG Chapter 11.

Using the CMDMG in a CMS complaint

A complaint can be especially useful where the problem concerns the way the decision was administered rather than simply disagreement with the outcome.

For example:

This may help where:

• Evidence appears to have been overlooked.
• Only one parent's account appears to have been considered.
• The decision contains no meaningful reasons.
• Relevant information was never placed before the decision maker.
• CMS cannot explain how contradictory evidence was resolved.

Volume 1 — Basic Principles

Volume 1 covers Chapters 3–16.

Important areas include:

• Duty to maintain.
• Welfare of children.
• Definitions.
• Relevant other children.
• Children abroad.
• Family-based arrangements.
• Shared care.
• Court orders.
• Effective dates.
• Payment methods.
• Charges and fees.

Chapter 4 — Welfare of children

This is one of the most important sections outside the shared-care chapter.

Paragraph 04001 reflects section 2 of the Child Support Act 1991.

CMS should not ignore known welfare information

The guidance explains that CMS does not necessarily have to investigate every possible welfare issue itself.

But where a decision maker already knows about relevant welfare information:

The CMDMG includes examples involving enforcement and children with additional needs.

Other children in the household may also matter

The welfare duty is not limited only to the child for whom maintenance is being paid.

The guidance says consideration can include:

• The paying parent's other children.
• The receiving parent's other children.
• Children of new partners living within either household.

Where relevant, each affected child's circumstances should be considered individually.

Enforcement that affects parent-child contact

The CMDMG recognises that enforcement can sometimes interfere with a parent's ability to maintain contact with their child.

Decision makers may need to weigh the potential negative impact upon the child against the benefits of collecting maintenance.

Disability, transport and enforcement

The DWP guidance contains an example concerning enforcement against a family vehicle.

Relevant circumstances may include a child having an illness or disability that makes public transport unsuitable.

Depending on the circumstances, the guidance illustrates that it may be appropriate to exclude a vehicle from certain enforcement action.

Savings, arrears and welfare

Another example in the guidance concerns recovering arrears from savings where the paying parent has children living in their household.

The guidance demonstrates that CMS may need to weigh:

• recovery of the arrears;
• the person's circumstances;
• the effect upon affected children.

Depending upon the individual circumstances, a smaller deduction or delayed recovery may sometimes be considered.

CMS should record discretionary decisions properly

This is one of the most useful parts of the Decision Makers' Guide for complaints and evidence requests.

The guidance says discretionary decisions should be properly recorded, including the reasons and information taken into account.

This gives people a specific decision record to ask CMS for.

A useful targeted request to CMS

A targeted request can often be more useful than requesting an enormous amount of unrelated CMS material.

Volume 2 — Maintenance Calculations

Volume 2 covers Chapters 17–26.

It includes important guidance concerning:

• Maintenance calculation rules.
• Historic income.
• Current employed income.
• Self-employed income.
• Universal Credit.
• Umbrella-company income.
• Estimating current income.
• Rates and calculation rules.
• Default maintenance decisions.

Volume 3 — Variations

Volume 3 covers Chapters 27–36 and deals with variation decisions.

It can be relevant where a case concerns:

• unearned income;
• diversion of income;
• additional income;
• special expenses;
• contact costs;
• certain travel costs;
• other variation issues.

Volume 4 — Information Gathering

Volume 4 covers Chapters 37–41.

It is particularly useful where disputes involve:

• Requests for evidence.
• HMRC information.
• Information obtained from third parties.
• Incomplete information.
• Evidence CMS says was not supplied.
• Information gathering before a decision was made.

A useful question is:

Volume 5 — Reviews, Revisions and Appeals

Volume 5 covers Chapters 42–48.

It includes guidance relevant to:

• Revisions.
• Supersessions.
• Mandatory Reconsiderations.
• Appeals.
• Effective dates.
• Correcting previous decisions.

Volume 6 — Collection and Enforcement

Volume 6 covers Chapters 49–95 and is one of the largest parts of the guide.

It can be relevant to:

• Arrears.
• Payment arrangements.
• Deduction from Earnings Orders.
• Bank deductions.
• Collection and enforcement decisions.
• Liability orders.
• Enforcement agents.
• Charging orders.
• Orders for sale.
• More serious enforcement measures.

Volume 7 — Evidence and Decision Making

Volume 7 covers Chapters 96–100.

This can be one of the most useful volumes where parents fundamentally disagree about facts.

Questions it can help with include:

• What standard of proof should be used?
• How should conflicting evidence be assessed?
• Who should provide evidence?
• How should a decision maker deal with disputed facts?
• What evidence is sufficient?
• How should reasons for a decision be recorded?

Annex B — Court Proceedings

The CMDMG also contains a separate Annex B dealing with court proceedings.

This may be particularly important where enforcement has progressed beyond ordinary CMS collection activity.

It should be read alongside Volume 6 and the actual legislation governing the court process.

The CMDMG is guidance — not the highest level of law

It is important to understand the legal hierarchy.

What to ask CMS for

When challenging a decision, consider asking specifically for:

• The decision-maker record.
• The calculation breakdown.
• The evidence used.
• The evidence you supplied.
• The shared-care decision record.
• The evidence-weighting record or reasoning.
• The effective-date decision.
• Revision or supersession records.
• Welfare-of-child consideration.
• The enforcement decision record.
• The arrears calculation.
• Payment-allocation records.

A useful challenge format

Important limitation

The stronger argument is to connect the failure to:

• the legislation;
• the regulations;
• relevant case law;
• the evidence;
• the effect upon the decision.

That is particularly important at tribunal.

The biggest point from the 18 August 2026 update

DWP has now expressly incorporated EA v SSWP and SA [2019] UKUT 149 (AAC) into its shared-care guidance.

Equally, CMS should not simply jump from:

to:

The revised guidance requires an evidence-based assessment using the balance of probabilities.

Official sources

Important legal information

This page provides general information about DWP's published Child Maintenance Decision Makers' Guide. It is not individual legal advice.

The CMDMG is departmental guidance and should be read alongside the relevant legislation, regulations and court or tribunal decisions.

Guidance and legislation can change. Always check the current GOV.UK publication and legislation applying at the date of the decision being challenged.

Right First Time UK — helping people understand the rules, evidence and decision-making processes that affect them.