2. Other ways CMS information can become wrong

This image groups common categories of administrative error, including:

• incorrect identity information
• duplicate records
• outdated information
• incomplete information
• incorrect relationship details
• timing problems
• data quality issues
• third-party system problems

It also shows the consequences:

• wrong maintenance calculations
• overpayments
• underpayments
• appeals
• enforcement errors

These are recognised categories of administrative error that can potentially occur in many large government systems.

3. Old CSA cases and missing payment history

This image contains two separate scenarios.

Upper section

Shows a hypothetical example where:

• an old Child Support Agency (CSA) case exists
• historical data is migrated or referenced
• payment history does not accompany the case
• CMS calculates arrears because previous payments appear absent

This illustrates one possible explanation for an apparent arrears issue but is not proof that this is what happened in any particular case.

Shows another hypothetical example:

• payments were made
• payment records become missing or disconnected
• CMS finds no payment history
• arrears are calculated from zero

Again, this is illustrating a possible administrative failure rather than stating that records are commonly deleted.

4. Full map of CMS errors

This is essentially a "mind map."

It organises errors into sections:

• identity matching, HMRC data, VME exchanges, payment recording, calculations, adjustments, document management, business processes, staff error, external systems

It then links those errors to outcomes such as

• false arrears
• wrong liability
• missing payments
• incorrect assessments
• appeals
• enforcement

It is intended as a conceptual overview showing where errors might occur during the life of a CMS case.

5. Receiving Parent giving incorrect information

This image illustrates a hypothetical situation where a receiving parent knowingly provides incorrect information to CMS.

Examples shown include:

• overstating the paying parent's income
• understating shared care
• claiming fewer overnight stays than actually occur

The image then shows how those claims could result in

• a higher maintenance calculation
• higher payments
• disputes

It's important to note that CMS does not rely solely on what one parent says about 

income. Current income figures are generally obtained from HMRC records, although 

information about shared care arrangements may depend on evidence from the parties if disputed.

6. Variable income calculation

These final two graphics explain the weekly income calculation used by CMS.

The diagrams show:

Annual income

↓

divide by 365

↓

multiply by 7

↓

weekly gross income

↓

deduct allowable pension contributions

↓

maintenance calculation

The examples compare:

Regular salary

where earnings remain similar throughout the year.

The annual average tends to represent current earnings reasonably well.

7. The CMS formula Irregular income current earning capacity

CMS generally uses a historical annual income figure (normally supplied by HMRC) to calculate weekly income.

The calculation shown is:

Annual gross taxable income
÷ 365
× 7

Weekly gross income

Then:

Allowable pension contributions are deducted from the weekly figure.

That weekly figure is then used to calculate child maintenance.

Why this works well for salaried employees

Suppose someone earns:

£600 every week

for the whole year.

Their annual income is

£31,200

CMS calculates

£31,200 ÷ 365 × 7

= about £598 per week

That is very close to what they actually earn every week.

So averaging works well.

What the five examples are trying to show

The examples are illustrating increasingly uneven income patterns.

Example 1

Small fluctuations.

The average stays reasonably close to reality.

Little difference.

Example 2

Larger ups and downs.

The average starts moving away from what someone earns most weeks.

Example 3

Large income spikes.

Three very good months increase the whole year's average.

If income later falls, the average remains high until HMRC supplies a newer tax year.

Example 4

Very large spikes.

Perhaps someone had:

• one large contract
• one business sale
• unusually high commission

The annual average becomes much higher than current income.

Example 5

Extreme example.

Perhaps:

• sold a business
• received a one-off bonus
• completed one major project

That year's taxable income becomes extremely high.

CMS averages it across the year.

If business has now disappeared, the weekly figure may be much higher than current earnings.

What the graph means

The green line represents actual earnings.

It rises sharply.

Then falls.

Then rises again.

CMS ignores those peaks and troughs. 

(should ignored the peaks but if payslips used at at those peaks they cause a problem) 

Instead it draws a straight average line across the year.

That straight line becomes the weekly income used for maintenance.

It is worth noting that describing this as "false income" is not technically correct. The 

calculation is based on actual historical taxable income, averaged over the relevant period. The concern being illustrated is that the average may not reflect someone's 

current earning capacity, particularly if their income has fallen significantly after high periods.

8. CMS uses an older HMRC tax year

The infographic is based on a scenario where CMS uses an older HMRC tax year because more recent HMRC income data is not available. One important clarification is that the image overstates the position. It says CMS can choose "any one of the six years" whenever it wishes. That is not how the legislation is intended to work. In practice, CMS normally uses the income information that HMRC provides under the statutory scheme, and if the latest tax year's information is unavailable there are rules governing which earlier information may be used. It is not simply an unrestricted choice.

That said, the image illustrates a concern that can arise if an assessment is based on an older, higher-income year.

Step 1 – CMS requests income from HMRC

When a maintenance calculation is started or reviewed, CMS asks HMRC for the paying parent's taxable income.

Normally this comes from:

• Self Assessment
• PAYE
• Real Time Information (RTI)
• other HMRC records

CMS usually bases the assessment on the income HMRC supplies.

Step 2 – More recent income is unavailable

Sometimes HMRC may not yet have processed the latest tax return or current year's information.

Possible reasons include:

• tax return not processed yet
• filing deadlines
• processing delays
• corrections still outstanding

In those situations, CMS may have to rely on the income information that is available under the applicable rules.

Step 3 – Older income may be much higher

For example:

Tax Year           Taxable income

2018/19            £120,000

2019/20            £110,000

2020/21            £95,000

2021/22            £80,000

2022/23            £45,000

2023/24            £28,000

Suppose the person's business has steadily declined.

Their actual income today might only be around £28,000.

If an older year with a much higher income is used because that is the information available, the resulting maintenance assessment may be considerably higher than if more recent verified income were available.

Step 4 – Weekly income is calculated

CMS converts annual taxable income into weekly income by:

Annual taxable income

÷ 365

× 7

=

Weekly gross income

Then allowable pension contributions are deducted before the maintenance calculation is made.

Step 5 – Effect of using an older higher-income year

If the income used reflects a period when earnings were much higher than they are now, the assessment may not reflect the person's current financial circumstances.

This could mean:

• maintenance payments higher than current earnings might support
• increased risk of arrears if payments become unaffordable
• disputes and requests for reassessment

Whether this is the correct legal outcome depends on the applicable CMS rules and whether there is a basis for using more up-to-date income or requesting a variation or supersession.

Step 6 – Evidence someone could provide

If a person believes the income being used is no longer representative, evidence might include:

• latest Self Assessment return
• HMRC tax calculation
• recent company accounts
• management accounts
• bank statements
• invoices
• profit and loss reports
• accountant's letter
• evidence of loss of contracts
• evidence of illness affecting earnings

Questions someone could ask CMS

Rather than assuming an error, it is often helpful to ask specific factual questions, such as:

• "Which HMRC tax year was used for my calculation?"
• "What income figure was supplied by HMRC?"
• "Please explain why that tax year was used."
• "Have you requested more recent HMRC information?"
• "If more recent information was unavailable, what evidence supports using the earlier figure?"
• "Please provide the calculation showing how my weekly gross income was derived."

When could this become an error?

It may become an issue if, for example:

• a more recent verified HMRC figure was available but not used;
• the wrong tax year was selected contrary to the applicable rules;
• the HMRC data was incorrect or mismatched; or
• there had been a qualifying change in circumstances that should have been taken into account.

By contrast, if CMS used the most recent income that HMRC could legally provide under the regulations, the fact that it does not reflect today's earnings does not necessarily mean the assessment is an administrative error—it may instead indicate that the statutory scheme relies on historical taxable income unless another mechanism allows the assessment to be updated.

In Scotland, child maintenance is governed mainly by UK-wide legislation, with some 
separate Scottish legal provisions.

Main legislation

1. Child Support Act 1991
   • This is the primary law governing child maintenance across Great Britain.
   • It created the statutory child maintenance system now administered by the Child Maintenance Service (CMS).
   • The CMS can:
     • calculate maintenance payments,
     • collect payments,
     • enforce unpaid maintenance,
     • resolve disputes about parentage in certain circumstances. 
2. Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985
   • Scotland has a separate legal concept called aliment (financial support).
   • Aliment can apply where the Child Support Act does not cover the situation, or where court orders are appropriate.
   • Applications for aliment are made through the Scottish courts rather than the CMS. 

Who must pay?

Generally, child maintenance is payable when:

• A child lives primarily with one parent and the other parent lives elsewhere; or
• Care is shared but one parent has a maintenance liability under the CMS calculation. 

Age limits

Under the child maintenance system:

• A child normally qualifies until age 16.
• Payments can continue until age 20 if the young person remains in approved education or training. 

Under Scottish aliment law:

• Support may extend to age 18, or
• Up to 25 if the young person is appropriately undertaking further education or training. 

Private agreements

Parents in Scotland can:

• Make their own family-based maintenance agreement.
• Ask a solicitor to make it legally binding.
• Register certain agreements in the Books of Council and Session so they can be enforced more easily. 

Enforcement

If maintenance is arranged through the CMS and payments are missed, the CMS has powers to:

• deduct money directly from earnings,
• take money from bank accounts,
• pursue enforcement action for arrears. 

If you're dealing with a specific situation (50/50 care, university-aged children, self-employment, arrears, a parent living abroad, or a Scottish court order), I can explain how the legislation applies to that circumstance.

Scottish Decision Makers Guides"

official guidance used by Scottish government 

decision-makers, the main collection is:

Social Security Scotland Decision Making Guides

Available through the official Social Security Scotland guidance portal. These guides are used by case managers when making entitlement decisions.

Current guide collections include:

• Child Disability Payment Decision Making Guide
• Adult Disability Payment Decision Making Guide
• Pension Age Disability Payment Decision Making Guide
• Carer Support Payment Decision Making Guide
• Cross-border Moves Guidance
• Scottish Adult Disability Living Allowance Guidance 

For child maintenance specifically, Scotland does not have a separate Scottish Decision Makers Guide. Child maintenance is administered under the UK-wide Child Maintenance Service, and decision makers use the:

Child Maintenance Decision Makers' Guide (CMDMG)

The CMDMG currently contains:

• Chapter 1 – Abbreviations
• Chapter 2 – Legislation
• Volume 1 – Basic Principles (Chapters 3–16)
• Volume 2 – Maintenance Calculations (Chapters 17–26)
• Volume 3 – Variations (Chapters 27–36)
• Volume 4 – Information Gathering
• Volume 5 – Reviews and Appeals (Chapters 42–48)
• Volume 6 – Collection and Enforcement (Chapters 49–95)
• Volume 7 – Evidence and Decision Making (Chapters 96–100) 

If your interest is Scottish child maintenance law, Scottish aliment law, or a specific child maintenance dispute, tell me which chapter or issue you need (shared care, non-resident parent income, variations, tribunal appeals, university-age children, arrears, etc.), and I can pull out the relevant decision-maker guidance and legislation.

family, child, and maintenance cases where Scottish law differs from England & Wales, these are some of the most significant differences that can affect court cases and decision-making.

1. Child maintenance vs aliment

In England and Wales, financial support for children is largely dealt with through the Child Maintenance Service (CMS).

In Scotland, the CMS still applies, but Scotland also retains the separate legal concept of aliment under the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985. A parent (and in some circumstances a person who accepted a child as part of their family) can owe aliment, and support may continue while a young person is in appropriate education or training up to age 25.

Practical difference

• England/Wales: child maintenance usually ends when CMS liability ends.
• Scotland: a court may still consider aliment obligations for qualifying young adults. 

2. Parental Responsibilities and Rights (PRRs)

Scotland does not use the English legal framework in exactly the same way.

Under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, parents have specific Parental Responsibilities and Rights (PRRs):

• safeguard and promote welfare,
• provide guidance,
• maintain personal relations and contact,
• act as the child's legal representative. 

England and Wales instead operate under the concept of parental responsibility in the Children Act 1989.

Practical difference

Scottish court orders, pleadings, and judgments often refer to PRRs rather than parental responsibility.

3. Contact is a parental responsibility

Scottish law expressly states that if a child does not live with a parent, that parent has a responsibility to maintain personal relations and direct contact with the child on a regular basis.

This is framed differently from England and Wales and can influence arguments in contact disputes.

4. Children's views

Scottish courts traditionally give significant weight to the child's views in family proceedings.

The Scottish system has developed separate procedures for obtaining children's views and has increasingly incorporated UNCRC principles into domestic law.

5. Guardianship

In Scotland, guardians can acquire PRRs under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. A guardian can effectively stand in the position of a parent for PRR purposes.

The legal framework and terminology differ from England and Wales.

6. Decision-making when multiple adults have rights

In Scotland, where several people hold PRRs, each can generally exercise rights independently, but major decisions should involve consultation with others holding PRRs and with the child where appropriate.

This differs somewhat from how disputes are commonly framed under the Children Act 1989.

7. Age-related differences

Scotland

• Child for most PRR purposes: under 16.
• Certain parental responsibilities continue to 18.
• Aliment can continue to 25 in qualifying education or training. 

England and Wales

• Different age thresholds apply depending on the legal issue, and there is no equivalent aliment regime extending support to 25 in the same way. 

8. Marriage age

Historically:

• Scotland allowed marriage at 16 without parental consent.
• England and Wales now require parties to be 18. Scotland has been consulting on alignment but historically remains different. 

9. Court structure

Family cases in Scotland are heard in:

• Sheriff Courts
• Court of Session

England and Wales use:

• Family Court
• High Court (Family Division)

Different procedures, terminology, and precedents apply.

10. Legal system itself

This is the biggest difference.

Scotland operates under Scots law, a mixed legal system with civil-law and common-law influences.

England and Wales operate under a common-law system. As a result:

• Scottish cases are not automatically governed by English family case law.
• English decisions can be persuasive but are not binding on Scottish courts.
• Scottish statutes and Scottish appellate decisions usually carry greater weight in Scottish family cases. 

For child maintenance disputes specifically, the biggest Scottish differences are:

1. Aliment alongside CMS.
2. Support potentially continuing to age 25.
3. The Scottish PRR framework.
4. Different court procedures and remedies through the Sheriff Court and Court of Session.

Child Maintenance (Scotland)

Child Maintenance (mygov.scot)

Official Scottish Government guidance on child maintenance arrangements, CMS, private agreements, and support after separation.

Child Maintenance (mygov.scot)

Help After Splitting Up

Guidance for separated parents covering parenting arrangements, finances, and support.

Help After Splitting Up

Make a Parenting Plan

Scottish Government resource to help separated parents agree arrangements for children.

Make a Parenting Plan

Social Security Scotland Decision-Making Guides

Main Decision Making Guide Portal

The official collection used by Social Security Scotland case managers.

Social Security Scotland Decision Making Guides

Guidance and Resources Hub

Guidance and Resources Hub

Available Decision-Making Guides

• Adult Disability Payment
• Child Disability Payment
• Pension Age Disability Payment
• Carer Support Payment
• Cross-border Moves
• Scottish Adult Disability Living Allowance

Scottish Decision-Making Principles

Person-Centred Decision Making

Person-Centred Decision Making Guidance

Explains Scotland's approach based on dignity, fairness, respect, and trust.

Principles of Decision Making

Principles of Decision Making

Sets out requirements that decisions be lawful, rational, fair, unbiased, and rights-compatible.

Dignity, Fairness and Respect

Following Our Principles

Explains the Scottish "start from a position of trust" approach.

Scottish Family Law and Children's Rights

Scottish Parliament Research Briefings

Useful for understanding how Scots law differs from England and Wales.

Scottish Parliament Research Briefings

Includes:

• Parental Responsibilities and Rights (PRRs)
• Children (Scotland) Act 1995
• Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985
• Aliment obligations
• Guardianship
• Contact and residence issues

Scottish Courts

Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service

Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service

For:

• Sheriff Court actions
• Family actions
• Appeals
• Court forms
• Judgments

Legislation

Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985

Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985

Key legislation for:

• Aliment
• Financial support obligations
• Family financial claims

Children (Scotland) Act 1995

Children (Scotland) Act 1995

Key legislation for:

• PRRs (Parental Responsibilities and Rights)
• Contact
• Residence
• Guardianship

Child Support Act 1991

Child Support Act 1991

The main UK-wide child maintenance legislation applying in Scotland as well.

Child Maintenance Service (CMS)

Official CMS Guidance

Child Maintenance Service (GOV.UK)

Child Maintenance Decision Makers' Guide

Child Maintenance Decision Makers' Guide

Used by CMS decision makers throughout Great Britain.

Support and Advice Organisations

Citizens Advice Scotland

Citizens Advice Scotland

Advice on:

• Child maintenance
• Family law
• Benefits
• Debt
• Appeals

Families Need Fathers Scotland

Families Need Fathers Scotland

Support with:

• Contact disputes
• Shared care
• PRRs
• Family court processes

Scottish Child Law Centre

Scottish Child Law Centre

Specialist advice on:

• Children's rights
• Family law
• Education law
• PRRs

Shared Parenting Scotland

Shared Parenting Scotland

Support on:

• Shared care
• Contact arrangements
• Separation issues

Scottish Government Portal

mygov.scot

mygov.scot Home

Central access point for Scottish public services including family law, child maintenance, benefits, and social security.

Scottish child-maintenance - family-law argument, the most important documents to read are:

1. Children (Scotland) Act 1995
2. Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985
3. Child Support Act 1991
4. Child Maintenance Decision Makers' Guide
5. Scottish Parliament briefings on PRRs and aliment.

official links most relevant 

Scottish Government / mygov.scot

Child Maintenance

Child Maintenance (Scotland)
Overview of child maintenance, private agreements, and CMS options.

Who Needs to Pay Child Maintenance

Who Needs to Pay Child Maintenance
Explains eligibility, age limits, education rules, and when payments stop.

How to Arrange Child Maintenance

How to Arrange Child Maintenance
Private agreements, mediation, legally binding agreements, and CMS routes.

Apply for Child Maintenance Service

How to Apply for the Child Maintenance Service
Application routes and eligibility.

Children and Living Apart

Children and Living Apart
Gateway page covering PRRs, parenting plans, child maintenance, and family separation.

Social Security Scotland Decision-Making Guidance

Main Decision Making Guide Portal

Decision Making Guide Portal
Official guides used by Scottish case managers.

Guidance and Resources

Guidance and Resources Hub
Contains guidance, decision-making manuals, and operational resources.

Person-Centred Decision Making

Person-Centred Decision Making
Scottish guidance on dignity, fairness, respect, and trust-based decision-making.

Following Our Principles

Following Our Principles
Explains the Scottish "start from a position of trust" approach.

Key Scottish Legislation

Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985

Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985

Key areas:

• Aliment
• Financial provision
• Family obligations

Children (Scotland) Act 1995

Children (Scotland) Act 1995

Key areas:

• Parental Responsibilities and Rights (PRRs)
• Contact
• Residence
• Guardianship

Child Support Act 1991

Child Support Act 1991

Main UK legislation governing CMS child maintenance.

Child Maintenance Decision-Makers Guide (CMS)

Official Guide

Child Maintenance Decision Makers' Guide

Used by CMS decision makers throughout Great Britain, including Scotland.

Scottish Courts and Tribunals

Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service

Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service

For:

• Sheriff Court family actions
• Appeals
• Judgments
• Family court forms

Support Organisations

Citizens Advice Scotland

Families Need Fathers Scotland

Scottish Child Law Centre

Shared Parenting Scotland

Particularly Relevant If You're Challenging a Child Maintenance Decision

Read these in order:

1. Child Support Act 1991
2. Child Maintenance Decision Makers' Guide
3. Children (Scotland) Act 1995
4. Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985
5. Child Maintenance (Scotland) Guidance 

If your case involves shared care, 50/50 care, PRRs, step-parents, university-aged children, or Scottish aliment up to age 25, 

1. Shared Care / 50-50 Care Cases

A common misconception is that a 50/50 overnight split automatically means no child maintenance is payable.

The CMS looks beyond overnight stays and may consider who provides the child's primary day-to-day care. In practice, disputes often arise where one parent receives Child Benefit and CMS treats that parent as the person with main care, even where overnight care is broadly equal. The CMS guidance and appeals process address these issues.

Key resource:

• Child Maintenance Decision Makers' Guide

Relevant sections:

• Volume 1 – Basic Principles
• Volume 2 – Maintenance Calculations
• Volume 5 – Reviews and Appeals
• Volume 7 – Evidence and Decision Making. 

Evidence often relied upon

• Court orders stating the child "lives with" both parents.
• School records.
• GP/dentist registrations.
• Childcare arrangements.
• Calendars showing actual care patterns.
• Child Benefit arrangements. 

2. Parental Responsibilities and Rights (PRRs)

Under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, PRRs are separate from child maintenance.

PRRs generally include:

• safeguarding and promoting welfare,
• providing guidance,
• maintaining personal relations and direct contact,
• acting as legal representative. 

Scottish Parliament briefing:

• Parental Responsibilities and Rights Briefing

Important Scottish distinction:

• A person may have PRRs without being a legal parent.
• A legal parent may not necessarily hold PRRs.
• Major decisions should involve consultation with others who hold PRRs and, where appropriate, the child. 

3. Aliment (Unique Scottish Feature)

Unlike England and Wales, Scotland retains the concept of aliment under the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985.

This can be important where:

• a young person continues in education,
• CMS jurisdiction has ended,
• support is sought through the Scottish courts.

Key legislation:

• Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985

4. Children in Further or Higher Education

Potentially one of the biggest Scotland-specific issues.

A young person may have support rights extending beyond the ordinary CMS period if they remain in qualifying education or training and meet the statutory tests under Scottish law.

Relevant legislation:

• Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985
• Children (Scotland) Act 1995

5. Disputes Between Parents With PRRs

Where parents cannot agree on:

• schooling,
• medical treatment,
• relocation,
• passports,
• foreign travel,
• contact arrangements,

the Sheriff Court can determine the dispute under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995.

Court service:

• Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service

6. If You're Challenging a CMS Decision

The usual route is:

1. Mandatory Reconsideration.
2. Appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.
3. Further appeal on a point of law if appropriate. 

Key guidance:

• CMS Decision Makers Guide – Reviews and Appeals

Core Reading Pack

If I were preparing a Scottish family-law or child-maintenance case, these would be the first documents I'd gather:

1. Children (Scotland) Act 1995
2. Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985
3. Child Support Act 1991
4. Child Maintenance Decision Makers' Guide
5. Scottish Parliament PRRs Briefing

The strongest arguments typically used

1. Equal care is not just overnight stays

CMS and Upper Tribunal case law distinguish:

• Equal overnight care.
• Equal day-to-day care.

You can have 50/50 nights and still be assessed for maintenance if CMS decides one parent performs more day-to-day parenting responsibilities.

2. Child Benefit is not conclusive

Many parents assume the person receiving Child Benefit automatically becomes the "parent with care."

However, tribunal decisions have established that evidence of actual parenting arrangements can outweigh Child Benefit status when considering whether day-to-day care is genuinely equal.

3. Evidence that helps prove equal day-to-day care

The most persuasive evidence tends to include:

• A Scottish court order stating the child lives with both parents.
• A week-on/week-off or 2-2-3 schedule.
• School communications sent to both parents.
• Both parents attending parents' evenings.
• GP and dentist registrations showing both parents involved.
• Evidence that each parent buys clothes, school uniform, and essentials.
• Evidence that each parent arranges activities and appointments.
• Evidence each parent takes time off work when the child is ill.
• Calendars, texts, emails, and parenting apps showing actual care arrangements. 

If CMS has already made a decision

Step 1: Mandatory Reconsideration

Request a Mandatory Reconsideration and specifically state:

"The issue is not simply shared overnight care. The issue is equal day-to-day care. I request that CMS reconsider the decision in accordance with the Child Maintenance Decision Makers' Guide and relevant Upper Tribunal authorities."

Support this with documentary evidence.

Step 2: First-tier Tribunal

If CMS refuses, appeal to the tribunal.

There are examples of parents successfully overturning CMS decisions where equal shared care was ultimately recognised and liability removed.

Scotland-specific points

If you are in Scotland and have:

• PRRs under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995,
• a shared residence/live-with order,
• a court-recognised shared care arrangement,

those documents can be important evidence of the parenting arrangement, although CMS still conducts its own assessment of day-to-day care.

Key Scottish legislation

• Children (Scotland) Act 1995
• Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985
• Child Support Act 1991

A practical tribunal evidence bundle

If I were preparing a tribunal bundle, I'd include:

1. Court order / child arrangements order.
2. 12-month parenting calendar.
3. School attendance and correspondence.
4. GP and dentist records.
5. Extracurricular activity records.
6. Evidence of clothing, food, and household expenditure.
7. Screenshots of parenting communications.
8. Written statement explaining:
   • who does school runs,
   • who attends appointments,
   • who cares during illness,
   • who makes educational decisions,
   • who handles extracurricular activities.

This is often more persuasive than simply proving 182.5 nights per year.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/CBP-10728/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Child Maintenance Northern Ireland

Core Northern Ireland Legislation

Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995

This is the main family law legislation in Northern Ireland.

Key principles:

• The child's welfare is paramount.
• Courts should consider the child's wishes and feelings where appropriate.
• The Order introduced the concept of parental responsibility. 

Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991

Northern Ireland has its own child support legislation equivalent to the Child Support Act 1991 used in Great Britain. Child maintenance is administered separately through the Northern Ireland Child Maintenance Service.

Northern Ireland Shared Care / 50-50 Cases

This is where many disputes arise.

The official Northern Ireland guidance states:

• Child maintenance is normally paid by the parent who does not have the day-to-day care.
• Overnight stays reduce maintenance.
• If care is shared equally, maintenance can potentially reduce to nil.
• Equal day-to-day care is different from equal shared care (overnight stays). 

The Northern Ireland guidance specifically says:

If the day-to-day care of a child is shared equally ... the paying parent will not have to pay child maintenance.

Evidence commonly used

If arguing equal day-to-day care, evidence often includes:

• Court orders.
• Parenting schedules.
• School involvement.
• Medical appointments.
• Clothing and equipment purchases.
• Extracurricular activities.
• Childcare arrangements.
• Communications between parents. 

Northern Ireland Decision Makers Guide

Northern Ireland has its own official Child Maintenance Decision Makers Guide.

Official guide

Northern Ireland Child Maintenance Decision Makers Guide – Basic Principles

Key chapters include:

• Duty to Maintain
• Welfare of the Child
• Meaning of Certain Terms
• Shared Care
• Court Orders
• Effective Dates
• Methods of Payment
• Charging Fees 

This is the Northern Ireland equivalent of the CMS Decision Makers Guide used in Great Britain.

Parental Responsibility (Northern Ireland)

Northern Ireland uses Parental Responsibility (PR) rather than Scotland's PRRs.

Parental responsibility means:

all the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority that a parent has in relation to a child.

Key differences from Scotland

Scotland

Northern Ireland

PRRs (Parental Responsibilities and Rights)

Parental Responsibility

Children (Scotland) Act 1995

Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995

Aliment exists

No Scottish-style aliment system

Support may continue to 25 in some education cases

No equivalent aliment regime

Sheriff Court/Court of Session

Family Proceedings Court, Magistrates' Court, County Court, High Court

Unmarried Fathers

Northern Ireland has specific rules regarding acquisition of parental responsibility.

Historically, unmarried fathers did not automatically obtain parental responsibility merely by being the father, although it can be acquired through registration, agreement, or court order.

This is often a key issue in contact and residence disputes.

Court Orders Relevant to Separated Parents

Under the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, courts can make:

• Residence Orders
• Contact Orders
• Prohibited Steps Orders
• Specific Issue Orders
• Parental Responsibility Orders 

These are similar to the family orders used in England and Wales.

Northern Ireland Links Worth Bookmarking

Family Law

Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 Guidance

Child Maintenance

Shared Care in Child Maintenance Cases (NI Direct)

Decision Makers Guidance

Northern Ireland Child Maintenance Decision Makers Guide

Parental Responsibility

Education Authority NI – Parental Responsibility Guidance

Family Court Forms

Children (NI) Order 1995 Court Forms and Guidance

Child Maintenance Service Errors, Shared Care, Financial Harm to Children and How to Challenge Decisions

The Child Maintenance Service (CMS) exists to 
ensure that children receive appropriate financial support from both 
parents following separation. The 
fundamental purpose of child maintenance is to promote the welfare and financial 
security of children.

When the CMS relies on inaccurate 
information, fails to 
properly investigate evidence, ignores genuine shared care arrangements, or makes decisions based on disputed facts, the 
consequences can affect not only the parents but also the child. Children can suffer financial 
disadvantage when 
incorrect 
maintenance 
calculations reduce the resources 
available to support them in either 
household.

This guide explains the legal framework, common CMS 
errors, the impact on children, and the steps available to 
challenge decisions.
 

Relevant Legislation

Child Support Act 1991

The Child Support Act 1991 

established the statutory child 

maintenance scheme and provides the legal basis for child maintenance calculations, assessments, reviews, variations, collection, and enforcement.

The purpose of the legislation is to ensure that children receive 

appropriate financial support from their parents.

Children Act 1989

The Children Act 1989 places the welfare of children at the centre of decision-making concerning 

children. While the CMS is not a local authority children's services 

department, any decision affecting a child's 

financial wellbeing should be viewed in the context of the child's welfare and best interests.

Human Rights Considerations

Relevant rights may include:

• Article 6 – Right to a fair hearing.
• Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life.
• Article 14 – Protection from discrimination.

Where decisions are based on 

inaccurate information, procedural unfairness, or failure to consider 

evidence, concerns may arise 

regarding fairness and proportionality.

Common CMS Errors

Incorrect Shared Care Records

The CMS may:

• Record fewer overnight stays than actually occur.
• Ignore evidence of shared care.
• Fail to properly consider court orders.
• Fail to consider long-term 
• established care arrangements.

Incorrect Income Information

The CMS may:

• Use inaccurate income 
• figures.
• Use outdated financial information.
• Misinterpret self-employment records.
• Fail to consider relevant evidence.

Reliance on Unverified Information

Concerns can arise where decisions appear to rely on:

• Hearsay.
• Assumptions.
• Unverified allegations.
• Incomplete information.
• Information contradicted by documentary evidence.

Administrative Errors

Examples include:

• Incorrect arrears calculations.
• Missing payment records.
• Failure to process evidence.
• Failure to record telephone discussions.
• Delays causing financial loss.

If a paying parent has shared care and the CMS uses false information, ignores evidence, or makes an 

incorrect decision, the financial 

impact on the child can arise in many ways. Examples include:

1. Incorrect Shared Care Calculation

• The child stays with the paying parent 3 nights a week, but CMS records only 1 night.
• The paying parent pays more maintenance than they should.
• The paying parent has less money available to provide food, clothing, activities, school 
• supplies, and transport during their periods of care.
• The child's standard of living is reduced while staying with that parent.

2. False Income Information

• CMS calculates maintenance using an income figure that is too high.
• The paying parent struggles to meet both maintenance 
• obligations and the costs of caring for the child during shared care.
• The child may miss out on 
• outings, educational activities, or other opportunities when with the paying parent.

3. Ignoring Housing Costs

• Excessive maintenance demands may place the paying parent's housing at risk.
• The parent may have to move to smaller or unsuitable accommodation.
• The child may lose access to a suitable bedroom or living 
• environment during contact periods.

4. Debt and Enforcement Action

• CMS pursues arrears based on incorrect information.
• Enforcement action causes 
• financial hardship.
• Money that would otherwise be spent directly on the child is 
• diverted to debt repayments, 
• enforcement fees, or legal costs.

5. Travel Costs for Shared Care

• The paying parent incurs 
• significant travel costs to 
• facilitate contact.
• If CMS fails to properly consider circumstances, the parent may struggle to fund travel arrangements.
• Reduced contact can affect the child's relationship with that parent.

6. School and Educational Expenses

• The paying parent can no longer contribute to school uniforms, books, computers, internet 
• access, or extracurricular activities.
• The child's educational opportunities may be affected.

7. Medical and Special Needs Costs

• The paying parent may be 
• unable to contribute towards 
• therapy, specialist equipment, prescriptions, or disability-
• related expenses.
• The child may experience reduced support.

8. Emotional Impact Through Financial Stress

• Significant financial pressure on the paying parent can create stress and instability.
• The child may witness conflict, anxiety, or difficulties 
• maintaining routines.
• Emotional wellbeing can be 
• affected even though the issue began as a financial decision.

9. Loss of Contact Opportunities

• Financial strain may make it 
• difficult to maintain overnight stays, holidays, or regular activities.
• The child may lose valuable time with the paying parent.

10. Failure to Investigate False Allegations

• If CMS accepts allegations 
• affecting shared-care arrangements without proper verification, 
• maintenance calculations may be wrong.
• The child may suffer financially because decisions are based on inaccurate information rather than actual care arrangements.

Possible Complaint Wording

"The Child Maintenance Service's 

reliance on inaccurate information has not only affected the paying 

parent but has also caused financial detriment to the child. The child spends substantial time in the 

paying parent's care and relies upon that parent to provide accommodation, food, clothing, transport, 

educational support, and emotional stability. By failing to accurately 

assess the circumstances and shared-care 

arrangements, the CMS has reduced the resources available for the child's direct benefit during periods of shared care, contrary to the purpose of ensuring the child's financial welfare."

How Incorrect Decisions Can Financially Harm Children

Many people assume that child maintenance disputes affect only adults. This is incorrect.

Where there is shared care, the child often relies upon both households for financial support.

Reduced Living Standards

If maintenance is calculated incorrectly:

• Less money may be available for food.
• Less money may be available for clothing.
• Household budgets may become strained.
• The child's standard of living may fall.

Housing Difficulties

Incorrect assessments can result in:

• Financial hardship.
• Rent arrears.
• Mortgage difficulties.
• Loss of suitable accommodation.

Children may lose access to a 

suitable bedroom or living 

environment during shared care periods.

Educational Impact

Financial pressures may affect:

• School uniforms.
• School trips.
• Computers.
• Internet access.
• Educational resources.
• Extracurricular activities.

Reduced Contact Opportunities

Financial strain may affect:

• Travel arrangements.
• Holiday contact.
• Activities between parent and child.

This can damage important family relationships.

Emotional Impact

Financial instability can contribute to:

• Stress.
• Conflict.
• Anxiety.
• Reduced emotional wellbeing.

Children often experience the 

consequences of financial disputes even when they are not directly involved.

Payment Protection and Evidence Protection

Every parent should keep:

• Bank statements.
• CMS letters.
• Emails.
• Text messages.
• School records.
• Medical records.
• Child Benefit information.
• Court orders.
• Parenting schedules.
• Contact logs.

Important evidence may include:

• School attendance records.
• GP registration records.
• Childcare invoices.
• Travel records.
• Witness statements.
• Photographs showing living arrangements.

Never rely solely on verbal 

discussions with the CMS.

Always request written confirmation.

Challenging a CMS Decision

Step 1 – Request a Mandatory Reconsideration

If you believe the CMS decision is wrong, request a Mandatory Reconsideration. This is the first formal challenge process. Requests generally need to be made within one month of the decision, and should 

explain the errors and include 

supporting evidence.

Provide:

• Detailed chronology.
• Documentary evidence.
• Explanation of errors.
• Shared care evidence.
• Financial evidence.

Step 2 – Appeal to the Tribunal

If the Mandatory Reconsideration is unsuccessful, you may appeal to the Social Security and Child Support Tribunal. The tribunal is independent of the CMS and can consider 

evidence and legal arguments. Appeals are generally required within one month of the Mandatory Reconsideration notice.

Step 3 – Formal Complaint

Where the issue concerns service failures rather than the calculation 

itself, submit a formal complaint to the Department for Work and Pensions complaints process.

Examples include:

• Failure to respond.
• Lost evidence.
• Delays.
• Administrative errors.
• Failure to follow procedures.

Step 4 – Independent Case Examiner

Where complaints remain unresolved, cases may be referred to the Independent Case Examiner after the complaints process has been exhausted. The service investigates maladministration and poor service.

Step 5 – Member of Parliament

You can ask your MP to intervene where there is evidence of serious delay, maladministration, procedural unfairness, or unresolved complaints.

Step 6 – Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

In some circumstances, complaints can ultimately be referred through an MP to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman after the 

appropriate complaints procedures have been completed.

Key Principles

Parents should expect:

• Fair treatment.
• Accurate calculations.
• Evidence-based decision making.
• Proper investigation of disputed facts.
• Recognition of genuine shared care.
• Transparent decision making.
• Protection against 
• administrative error.

Conclusion

The child maintenance system exists for the benefit of children. When decisions are based on inaccurate information, unverified allegations, 

administrative errors, or a failure to properly recognise shared care 

arrangements, children can suffer real financial harm.

Protecting children requires more than collecting maintenance payments. It requires accurate, fair, 

evidence-based decisions that 

recognise the role both parents play in 

supporting their children. Where errors occur, parents should preserve evidence, challenge incorrect 

decisions promptly, and use every available review, appeal, and 

complaint process to ensure that the child's financial welfare remains protected.

Income Variability and the Use of Averaged Weekly Income in Child Maintenance Assessments

Purpose

This evidence paper examines whether converting annual earnings into a fixed weekly income 

accurately reflects the financial 

reality of individuals whose earnings fluctuate throughout the year.

The issue is particularly relevant to:

- Self-employed workers

- Agency workers

- Contractors

- Overtime-based employees

- Commission earners

- Seasonal workers

- Individuals with sickness absences

- Workers experiencing reduced hours

Exhibit A – Standard Salary Example

A public salary calculator shows that a person earning £27,000 annually is treated as earning:

£519.23 gross per week

Calculation:

£27,000 ÷ 52 = £519.23

For a salaried employee paid evenly throughout the year this may broadly reflect reality.

The employee receives the same monthly wage regardless of:

- weekends;

- public holidays;

- annual leave.

In such circumstances averaging creates little distortion.

Exhibit B – Income Reality for 

Non-Salaried Workers

Many workers do not receive a fixed salary.

Examples include:

Agency Worker

Week 1: £720

Week 2: £340

Week 3: £0

Week 4: £610

Week 5: £280

Annual income may still total:

£27,000

CMS assessment:

£519.23 every week

Actual income:

Varies significantly from week to week.

The assessment therefore reflects an average rather than actual 

income availability.

Exhibit C – Construction Contractor

Actual weekly earnings:

January:

£900

£850

£940

£0

February:

£760

£810

£0

£0

March:

£1,050

£1,120

£980

£0

The worker experiences periods with no income.

However, the annual total may still equal:

£27,000

The weekly assessment remains:

£519.23

The calculation therefore assumes income continuity despite evidence of intermittent earnings.

Exhibit D – Seasonal Worker

Worker earns:

April to October only.

Income:

£27,000

Months worked:

7

Months not worked:

5

Actual monthly income while working:

£3,857

Income during off-season:

£0

Assessment:

£519.23 per week for all 52 weeks.

The averaging mechanism ignores periods where no earnings are received.

Exhibit E – Cash Flow Reality

Averaging income creates a 

distinction between:

Income Average

Theoretical income over twelve months.

and

Income Availability

Money actually available at a 

particular point in time.

Example:

Annual income:

£27,000

Weekly average:

£519.23

Current week earnings:

£170

The average remains £519.23 

despite only £170 being available.

The assessment therefore 

measures annual earning capacity rather than immediate affordability.

Key Observation

The issue is not that averaging 

increases annual income.

Mathematically:

£519.23 × 52 = £27,000

The annual figure remains unchanged.

The concern is that averaging 

converts fluctuating earnings into a fixed weekly income stream which may not exist in reality.

Financial Consequences

For workers with variable income this may result in:

- Maintenance demands exceeding current earnings.

- Reliance on credit.

- Rent or mortgage arrears.

- Utility arrears.

- Increased debt.

- Reduced ability to support children during shared care periods.

- Colect and Pay / Direct of Ernings Order (AEO) (DEO)

Economic Reality Test

Question:

Does a person earning £27,000 

annually necessarily have £519.23 available every week?

Answer:

No.

The figure represents an average.

It does not prove:

- weekly availability;

- weekly affordability;

- cash flow position;

- current income level.

Evidence-Based Conclusion

The annual-to-weekly conversion method accurately converts annual income into an average weekly figure.

However, for workers whose earnings fluctuate, the calculation 

measures theoretical annual earning 

capacity rather than actual weekly 

income availability.

As a result, the assessment may not accurately reflect the financial reality faced by individuals whose earnings vary significantly throughout the year.

The greater the fluctuation in earnings, the greater the difference between the averaged income used for assessment and the income 

actually available at any given time.

Public Law Principles

Even where legislation exists, all 

public bodies remain subject to:

Wednesbury Reasonableness

A public authority cannot make a 

decision so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have reached it.

The legal test is extremely high.

• A challenge could arise where:
• CMS knows income has collapsed.
• CMS possesses evidence 
• proving income has collapsed.
• CMS refuses to consider the evidence.
• CMS continues enforcement based on income known to be inaccurate.

At that point the issue becomes:

Was the decision irrational?

Exhibit – Wednesbury Reasonableness and 

Decision-Making

Public authorities must exercise their powers reasonably and take relevant information into account when 

making decisions.

Under the principle established in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948], a public authority may act unlawfully where it reaches a decision that no reasonable 

decision-maker could have reached in the circumstances.

The issue is not whether CMS is 

permitted to use historical income data as a starting point.

The issue arises where:

CMS is informed that income has significantly reduced.

CMS is provided with evidence of that reduction.

CMS accepts receipt of the evidence.

CMS delays reviewing the evidence.

CMS continues collection or 

enforcement action based on 

income known to be outdated or inaccurate.

In such circumstances, the question becomes:

"Is it reasonable to continue relying on an historic income figure when more accurate and current evidence is available?"

The longer the delay between 

notification and correction, the stronger the argument that the 

assessment no longer reflects 

reality and may become unreasonable.

Exhibit – Proportionality and Human Rights

The Human Rights Act 1998 requires public authorities to act compatibly with Convention rights.

Article 1 of Protocol 1 protects the peaceful enjoyment of possessions, including earned income.

Article 8 protects family life.

While child maintenance serves a 

legitimate public purpose, any 

interference with income must 

remain proportionate.

Questions arise where:

Assessments are based on income no longer being earned.

Delays prevent timely correction.

Enforcement continues despite 

evidence of hardship.

Shared care arrangements are placed at risk due to financial pressure.

The issue is not whether 

maintenance should be paid.

The issue is whether the method of assessment and enforcement 

remains proportionate when current financial circumstances differ 

substantially from historic assumptions.

Exhibit – Shared Care, Child Welfare and Unintended Consequences

Child maintenance policy is intended to support children.

However, where assessments fail to reflect actual income availability, there may be unintended consequences.

Financial pressure on a paying 

parent can affect:

Housing stability.

Ability to provide food and clothing during contact periods.

Ability to travel for contact.

Ability to maintain suitable 

accommodation for overnight stays.

In shared care arrangements, 

children benefit from meaningful 

involvement by both parents.

Where affordability issues reduce a parent's ability to maintain shared care arrangements, the child may 

experience a reduction in practical support and parental involvement.

It is therefore necessary to consider whether delayed reassessments and reliance on historic income data may, in some circumstances, 

undermine the wider welfare 

interests of the child.

Exhibit  – Administrative Delay and Public Administration

The effectiveness of any 

assessment system depends upon timely correction of inaccurate information.

Where substantial delays occur between:

Notification of changed circumstances;

Submission of evidence;

Review of calculations;

Resolution of disputes;

there is a risk that decisions 

continue to be based on information that no longer reflects reality.

Consequences may include:

Accumulation of arrears.

Increased enforcement activity.

Increased complaints.

Additional administrative costs.

Financial hardship for families.

This raises questions regarding 

efficiency, value for money, and the effectiveness of public administration.

The issue is not solely individual hardship but whether systemic delay creates avoidable costs and 

unintended outcomes across the wider CMS system.

How These Arguments Can Be Used in Individual CMS Cases

1. Wednesbury Reasonableness

When it applies

A parent has informed CMS that their circumstances have changed significantly.

Examples:

• Redundancy
• Long-term sickness
• Business collapse
• Reduced hours
• Retirement
• Significant drop in earnings

The parent supplies evidence.

CMS continues to use old figures despite having evidence that those figures no longer reflect reality.

Argument

"I am not challenging the legislation.

I am challenging the reasonableness of continuing to rely upon income 

information that CMS knows is inaccurate.

The decision is based upon outdated information despite the availability of more accurate evidence."

Evidence Needed

• Payslips
• Bank statements
• P45
• Employer letters
• Universal Credit statements
• Self-employed accounts

2. Procedural Fairness

When it applies

CMS:

• ignores evidence;
• fails to explain calculations;
• fails to answer questions;
• fails to investigate concerns.

Argument

"I provided evidence on [date].

CMS failed to explain why that 

evidence was rejected or disregarded.

I have therefore been denied a fair opportunity to challenge the assessment."

Evidence Needed

• Emails
• CMS letters
• Telephone logs
• Mandatory reconsideration requests

3. Administrative Delay

When it applies

CMS takes months to:

• review income changes;
• investigate;
• process reconsiderations;
• correct errors.

Argument

"Even if CMS was entitled to review the evidence, excessive delay caused avoidable hardship.

The assessment remained 

inaccurate long after CMS was aware of the issue."

Evidence Needed

Create a timeline:

Date income changed

Date CMS informed

Date evidence supplied

Date response received

Date correction made

Total delay period

4. Proportionality

When it applies

Maintenance demands become 

disconnected from actual financial circumstances.

Examples:

• Income reduced by 50%.
• Maintenance remains unchanged.
• Parent cannot meet essential living costs.

Argument

"The amount demanded may have been proportionate when the 

assessment was made.

It is no longer proportionate given current circumstances and available evidence."

Evidence Needed

Income and expenditure schedule.

Housing costs.

Utility costs.

Travel costs for contact with children.

Debt created by assessment.

5. Shared Care Impact

When it applies

Financial pressure affects the ability to maintain contact arrangements.

Examples:

• Unable to afford fuel.
• Unable to maintain suitable accommodation.
• Unable to fund overnight care.

Argument

"The assessment is having a direct impact on my ability to care for the child during contact periods.

This is contrary to the wider welfare interests of the child."

Evidence Needed

Court orders.

Parenting plans.

Contact schedules.

Travel receipts.

Evidence of overnight care.

6. Human Rights Arguments

When it applies

Usually only after all normal 

complaint and appeal routes have been exhausted.

Argument

Article 8 (Family Life)

"The financial impact of the decision affects my ability to maintain 

meaningful family life with my child."

Article 1 Protocol 1 (Property)

"The assessment interferes with my income based upon information that no longer reflects reality."

These arguments are usually 

supporting arguments rather than primary arguments.

7. Affordability Argument

When it applies

A parent can demonstrate:

• Income reduction.
• Essential expenditure.
• Financial hardship.

Argument

"The issue is not unwillingness to support my child.

The issue is affordability and the need for an assessment based on current circumstances."

Evidence Needed

Income and expenditure breakdown.

Bank statements.

Rent or mortgage statements.

Council tax.

Utility bills.

Evidence of other dependent children.

Strongest Individual Case Strategy

The strongest cases usually follow this structure:

1. Income changed.
2. CMS was informed.
3. Evidence was supplied.
4. CMS delayed or ignored evidence.
5. Assessment remained inaccurate.
6. Hardship resulted.
7. Shared care or child welfare was affected.

That becomes a factual challenge to the way CMS handled the case rather than a challenge to the 

legislation itself.

Those arguments are much harder for CMS, ICE, MPs, Ombudsman 

investigations, or courts to dismiss.

 CMS Child Maintenance Payment Framework

Statutory Calculation Rates, Shared Care Adjustments and Affordability Considerations

November 2025

Introduction

The Child Maintenance Service (CMS) calculates child maintenance using statutory rates set out in legislation. These rates are applied to a paying parent's gross weekly income and may be adjusted to reflect shared care arrangements, collection charges, protected earnings provisions and other relevant circumstances.

This framework provides an overview of the statutory calculation process, the shared care reduction system, and the key legal principles that guide CMS decision-making.

1. Statutory Child Maintenance Rates

The standard rates of child maintenance are determined by the number of qualifying children.

One Qualifying Child

12% of gross weekly income up to £800 per week.

9% of any gross weekly income above £800 per week.

Two Qualifying Children

16% of gross weekly income up to £800 per week.

12% of any gross weekly income above £800 per week.

These rates are prescribed by the Child Support Act 1991 and are intended to provide a fair and proportionate contribution towards the cost of raising children.

Standard Calculation Process

CMS generally calculates maintenance using the following steps:

Obtain the paying parent's gross weekly income, usually from HMRC records.

Apply the relevant statutory percentage according to the number of qualifying children.

Apply any shared care reduction where overnight care is provided.

Add collection fees where the Collect and Pay service is being used.

2. Shared Care Reductions

Where a paying parent provides regular overnight care, CMS reduces the maintenance liability to reflect the time the child spends in their care.

The reduction is applied after the statutory percentage calculation has been completed.

Shared Care Band

Nights Per Year

Reduction Applied

Percentage Payable

Band A

52–103 nights

1/7 deduction

85.7%

Band B

104–155 nights

2/7 deduction

71.4%

Band C

156–174 nights

3/7 deduction

57.1%

Band D

175+ nights

50% deduction

50.0%

These reductions recognise the financial contribution made through direct care and overnight accommodation.

3. Example Calculation – One Child

Gross Weekly Income: £600

Shared Care: Band C (156–174 nights)

Step 1: Gross weekly income = £600

Step 2: Apply statutory rate:
£600 × 12% = £72.00 per week

Step 3: Apply Band C shared care reduction:
£72.00 × 4/7 = £41.14 per week

Step 4: Convert to monthly amount:
£41.14 × 52 ÷ 12 = £178.27 per month

This equates to approximately 6.9% of a monthly income of £2,600.

4. Example Calculation – Two Children

Gross Weekly Income: £650

Shared Care: Band B (104–155 nights)

Step 1: Gross weekly income = £650

Step 2: Apply statutory rate:
£650 × 16% = £104.00 per week

Step 3: Apply Band B shared care reduction:
£104.00 × 5/7 = £74.29 per week

Step 4: Convert to monthly amount:
£74.29 × 52 ÷ 12 = £321.92 per month

This equates to approximately 11.4% of a monthly income of £2,817.

Typical Maintenance Outcomes

Where shared care arrangements are in place, maintenance payments commonly fall within the following ranges:

One child: approximately 6–7% of gross income.

Two children: approximately 11–12% of gross income.

Where demands significantly exceed these ranges, it may be appropriate to review the calculation to ensure that the correct income figures, shared care arrangements and statutory rules have been applied.

5. Key Decision-Making Principles

CMS is required to apply legislation fairly while also considering the individual circumstances of each case.

Individual Circumstances and Discretion

Government guidance recognises that collection and enforcement decisions should take account of the circumstances of the individual case rather than relying solely on standard procedures.

Child Welfare

When exercising discretionary powers, the welfare of any child affected by a decision remains an important consideration.

Protected Earnings

Protected earnings provisions are designed to ensure that enforcement action does not leave a paying parent without sufficient income to meet essential living costs.

These protections may include consideration of:

Universal Credit or Income Support entitlement levels.

Housing costs.

Essential household expenditure.

Additional statutory allowances.

Variations

A parent may request a variation where the standard calculation would otherwise produce an unfair or inappropriate outcome.

Examples include:

Significant special expenses.

Income not reflected in HMRC records.

Property or capital transfers relevant to child maintenance.

Duty to Explain Decisions

Where concerns are raised, CMS should:

Investigate the issues properly.

Provide a clear explanation of calculations.

Correct any identified errors.

Consider Mandatory Reconsideration where appropriate.

6. Affordability Considerations

Although statutory percentages form the basis of child maintenance calculations, affordability remains an important consideration when determining payment arrangements and enforcement action.

Protected earnings rules recognise that maintenance collection should not leave a parent unable to meet essential living expenses.

Circumstances Where Affordability May Require Particular Consideration

A significant reduction in income.

Evidence of financial hardship.

Responsibility for other dependent children.

Enforcement action creating genuine difficulty in meeting basic living costs.

Maintenance demands that appear substantially higher than expected under statutory calculations.

Balancing Financial Stability

The long-term welfare of children is generally best served when both parents remain financially stable.

Excessive enforcement measures can sometimes:

Reduce a parent's ability to provide during shared care.

Affect health and wellbeing.

Increase parental conflict.

Undermine cooperative parenting arrangements.

Practical Steps for Parents

Where affordability concerns arise, parents should:

Keep clear records of income and essential expenditure.

Request consideration of protected earnings provisions.

Seek payment arrangements that reflect actual financial circumstances.

Ask CMS to explain how affordability factors were assessed.

Escalate concerns through management review or the complaints process where appropriate.

Legislative Framework

Primary Legislation

Child Support Act 1991

Section 2 – Child welfare considerations.

Section 28A – Variations to standard maintenance rules.

Schedule 1, Part I, Paragraph 2(1) – Statutory maintenance percentages.

Secondary Legislation

Child Support (Maintenance Calculations and Special Cases) Regulations 2000

Regulation 7 – Gross weekly income calculations.

Regulation 50 – Shared care reductions.

Regulation 53 – Protected earnings provisions.

Child Support (Collection and Enforcement) Regulations 1992

Regulation 26 – Protected earnings and deduction from earnings orders.

Regulation 32 – Collection fees and charges.

Independent Review

Parents who believe CMS has failed to follow proper procedures may refer unresolved complaints to the Independent Case Examiner (ICE), which can independently review CMS actions and make recommendations where appropriate.

This document is intended as a general guide to the statutory child maintenance framework and should not be regarded as legal advice. Individual cases depend on specific facts, evidence and applicable legislation.

Full legal framework governing the UK Child Maintenance Service (CMS)

Primary Legislation

1. Child Support Act 1991

The foundational law creating the statutory child maintenance scheme. It establishes parental liability, maintenance calculations, CMS jurisdiction, enforcement powers, appeals, and court interaction.

Official text:
Child Support Act 1991 (Legislation.gov.uk)

2. Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008

Major reform legislation that overhauled child maintenance administration, introduced stronger enforcement powers, and paved the way for the modern CMS.

Official text:
Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008

3. Welfare Reform Act 2012

Introduced the 2012 child maintenance scheme and facilitated the transition from the Child Support Agency (CSA) to the Child Maintenance Service (CMS).

Official text:
Welfare Reform Act 2012

Core Regulations (Current CMS Scheme)

4. Child Support Maintenance Calculation Regulations 2012

The most important regulations for calculating child maintenance, including:

• Gross weekly income
• Shared care reductions
• Relevant other children
• Variations
• Special cases

Official text:
Maintenance Calculation Regulations 2012

5. Child Support Fees Regulations 2014

Governs application fees and collection charges.

Official text:
Child Support Fees Regulations 2014

6. Child Support Collection and Enforcement Regulations

Rules covering:

• Deduction from earnings orders
• Lump-sum deductions
• Regular deductions from bank accounts
• Liability orders
• Enforcement procedures

Enforcement Legislation

7. Child Support (Enforcement) Act 2023

Expanded CMS enforcement powers and introduced administrative liability orders, reducing the need for court applications before enforcement action.

Official text:
Child Support (Enforcement) Act 2023

Key Government Guidance

8. DWP Child Maintenance Decision Makers' Guide (DMG)

The operational manual used by CMS decision-makers.

Contains guidance on:

• Parentage disputes
• Shared care
• Variations
• Income calculations
• Jurisdiction
• Arrears

Referenced by Parliament and DWP guidance.

Decision Makers Guide (DWP)

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/child-maintenance-decision-makers-guide

9. CMS Operational Guidance

Official CMS practice guidance used by caseworkers.

CMS Guidance Collection

10. Child Maintenance Service (Official GOV.UK Guide)

The public-facing CMS guide explaining:

• Eligibility
• Applications
• Calculations
• Collection methods
• Appeals

Child Maintenance Service Guide

Appeals and Tribunals

11. First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)

CMS decisions can be challenged through:

1. Mandatory Reconsideration
2. Appeal to the Tribunal

Relevant legislation includes:

• Tribunal Procedure Rules
• Social Security Act appeal provisions
• Child Support Act appeal provisions

Parliamentary and Research Guides

12. House of Commons Library Briefings

Useful explanatory guides:

• Child maintenance calculations
• CMS reforms
• Enforcement powers
• Qualifying child rules

House of Commons Child Maintenance Research Briefings

Current CMS Legal Hierarchy

1. Child Support Act 1991
2. Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008
3. Welfare Reform Act 2012
4. Child Support Maintenance Calculation Regulations 2012
5. Collection & Enforcement Regulations
6. Fees Regulations
7. Child Support (Enforcement) Act 2023
8. DWP Decision Makers' Guide
9. CMS Operational Guidance

DWP  DSAR (Data Subject Access Request)

Request your personal information from the Department for Work and Pensions

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/request-your-personal-information-from-the-department-for-work-and-pensions

DWP & Child Maintenance Service (CMS) Data Subject Access Requests (DSAR)
Accessing Your Records, Evidence Gathering, Challenging Incorrect Information, False Arrears Protection & Accountability

A Data Subject Access Request (DSAR), often called a Subject Access Request (SAR), is one of the most powerful tools available to individuals dealing with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) or the Child Maintenance Service (CMS).

A DSAR allows you to request copies of personal information held about you.

For many Paying Parents, a DSAR can be particularly valuable where concerns exist regarding:

• False arrears
• Missing payments
• Incorrect maintenance calculations
• Shared care disputes
• Missing evidence
• Internal case notes
• Telephone call records
• Decisions that appear unsupported
• Allegations that evidence has been ignored
• Enforcement action based on disputed information

A DSAR can help individuals understand how decisions were made, what information is being held, and whether records appear accurate.

What Is A DSAR?

A Data Subject Access Request is a legal right under:

UK GDPR

and

Data Protection Act 2018

It allows individuals to request copies of personal data held by organisations, including:

• DWP
• Child Maintenance Service (CMS)
• Government departments
• Public bodies
• Private organisations

Why A DSAR Is Important

Many disputes arise because individuals do not know:

• What records exist
• What information has been recorded
• What evidence has been considered
• What internal notes exist
• What information was relied upon

A DSAR can help uncover:

• Internal case notes
• Contact history
• Decision records
• Complaint records
• Case management information
• Correspondence logs

What Information Can Be Requested?

Depending on the circumstances, a DSAR may include:

CMS Case Notes

Internal records created by CMS staff.

Maintenance Calculations

Information used when making decisions.

Arrears Records

Debt calculations and account histories.

Payment Histories

Records of payments received and allocated.

Direct Pay Records

Information relating to reported payments.

Shared Care Records

Information held regarding parenting arrangements.

Complaint Records

Internal complaint handling records.

Telephone Call Records

Call logs and, where available, call recordings.

Internal Correspondence

Certain internal communications relating to your case.

Decision Making Records

Notes explaining how decisions were reached.

Why Paying Parents Often Use DSARs

Many Paying Parents request DSARs where they believe:

• Payments were not credited.
• Arrears are inaccurate.
• Shared care evidence has been ignored.
• Information has been recorded incorrectly.
• CMS decisions are inconsistent.
• Enforcement action was based on incomplete information.

DSARs can sometimes reveal information not previously disclosed through routine correspondence.

Advanced Claimant Protection

A DSAR is often one of the strongest tools available when challenging:

False Arrears

Request payment allocation records and account histories.

Missing Payments

Review payment records and internal notes.

Ignored Evidence

Check whether evidence submissions were recorded.

Incorrect Income Information

Review the information used in calculations.

Enforcement Decisions

Understand how enforcement action was authorised.

Evidence Standards

Good administration requires decisions to be:

• Evidence-based
• Transparent
• Accurate
• Capable of explanation

A DSAR can help identify whether:

• Evidence was considered.
• Information was recorded correctly.
• Decisions were properly documented.

Information That May Be Redacted

Some information may not be released.

Examples may include:

• Information relating to another person.
• Sensitive third-party information.
• Information protected by specific exemptions.

This does not mean a request has been refused.

Redactions are permitted under certain circumstances.

How To Make A DSAR

A request should include:

Full Name

Address

National Insurance Number (where relevant)

CMS Reference Number (if applicable)

Description Of Information Requested

Be as specific as possible.

Example Request Areas

You may ask for:

• Complete CMS case file
• Internal case notes
• Payment histories
• Arrears calculations
• Shared care records
• Telephone call recordings
• Complaint records
• Decision records
• Enforcement records
• Internal communications relating to your case

Time Limits

Organisations normally have:

One Month

to respond to a valid DSAR.

In certain circumstances, extensions may apply.

If Information Is Missing

If you believe information has not been provided:

Request Clarification

Ask whether additional records exist.

Submit A Follow-Up Request

Clarify what appears missing.

Raise Concerns Through The ICO

Where necessary.

DSARs And False Arrears

One of the most common reasons Paying Parents submit DSARs is to investigate disputed arrears.

Examples include:

• Payments showing as unpaid.
• Missing Direct Pay records.
• Incorrect account balances.
• Historical payment discrepancies.

A DSAR can assist in comparing:

CMS Records

Against

Personal Records

Such as:

• Bank statements
• Standing order records
• Payroll records
• Screenshots
• Payment confirmations

Using A DSAR In Appeals & Complaints

Information obtained through a DSAR may assist with:

Mandatory Reconsiderations

Tribunal Appeals

CMS Complaints

Independent Case Examiner (ICE) Complaints

Ombudsman Complaints

Data Accuracy Challenges

Correcting Inaccurate Records

Under data protection law, individuals may request correction of inaccurate information.

Examples may include:

• Incorrect payment records.
• Incorrect contact details.
• Inaccurate case notes.
• Incorrect arrears information.

Supporting evidence should be provided wherever possible.

Legal Rights

Individuals have important rights including:

Right Of Access

To personal data held.

Right To Information

About how data is used.

Right To Rectification

Correction of inaccurate information.

Right To Fair Processing

Personal data should be processed lawfully.

Right To Accountability

Public bodies remain accountable for information handling.

Relevant Legislation

Key legislation includes:

UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR)

Provides the legal right of access.

Data Protection Act 2018

Supports data protection rights in UK law.

Human Rights Act 1998

Supports fairness and procedural protections.

Child Support Act 1991

Relevant to child maintenance administration.

Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008

Provides the framework for CMS operations.

Accountability & Oversight

If concerns remain unresolved, oversight bodies may be available.

Information Commissioner's Office (ICO)

The UK's independent regulator for data protection.

Independent Case Examiner (ICE)

For certain unresolved CMS complaints.

Parliamentary & Health Service Ombudsman

Through MP referral routes.

Independent Tribunals

Where appeal rights apply.

Useful Resources

DWP Subject Access Request

DWP Personal Information Request Service

Child Maintenance Service

Child Maintenance Service

Information Commissioner's Office (ICO)

Information Commissioner's Office (ICO)

Data Protection Rights

Your Right To Access Personal Information

Advanced DSAR Request Checklist

When requesting information from CMS or DWP, consider asking for:

✓ Full case file

✓ Internal case notes

✓ Maintenance calculations

✓ Payment allocation records

✓ Arrears breakdowns

✓ Direct Pay records

✓ Shared care records

✓ Telephone call recordings

✓ Complaint records

✓ Decision-making records

✓ Enforcement records

✓ Copies of evidence submitted

✓ Internal communications relating to your case

DSAR Evidence Audit Checklist

After receiving your records:

✓ Compare CMS records against bank statements

✓ Compare payment histories against your own records

✓ Check whether submitted evidence appears on file

✓ Check for inaccurate case notes

✓ Review arrears calculations

✓ Review shared care records

✓ Review enforcement notes

✓ Create a timeline of events

✓ Identify missing documents

✓ Highlight inaccuracies for correction

Key Message

A Data Subject Access Request (DSAR) is one of the most powerful accountability tools available to parents dealing with the Child Maintenance Service or the Department for Work and Pensions. It can provide access to records, case notes, calculations, complaint files, payment histories, and other information that may be essential when challenging incorrect decisions, disputed arrears, missing payments, or allegations that evidence has been ignored.

For Paying Parents in particular, a DSAR can help uncover how decisions were made, what evidence was considered, and whether records are accurate. Strong evidence, accurate records, transparency, and accountability remain fundamental safeguards within the child maintenance system.