Learn how the CMS Equal Shared Care arrangement, guided by Regulation 50, impacts child maintenance payments when both parents share care equally. Child Maintenance can sometimes be deemed not payable when care of the child/ren is shared equally between parents. However, understanding the nuances of Equal Shared Care & Regulation 50 is essential, as the deciding factors are not always straightforward. There is a difference between what the CMS deem Shared Care Band Equal and true 50/50 Equal Shared Care.
The number of overnights reduces the child maintenance payable; if the number of overnights exceeds 175, the band used is Shared Care Band Equal. The discounts are set out in the table below:
Number of nights of shared care each year | Reduction to child maintenance (for each child with shared care) |
---|---|
52 to 103 nights | 1/7th |
104 to 155 nights | 2/7ths |
156 to 174 nights | 3/7ths |
175 nights or more | ½ (50%) plus an extra £7 a week reduction for each child in this band |
Legislation was introduced in 2012 (when the CSA was superseded by the CMS) recognising cases where “50/50 Equal Shared Care” is in place between parents. Where child maintenance equal shared care is proven, no child maintenance is liable, and the Child Maintenance case can be closed.
Typically, Equal Shared Care is proven by showing one parent (the parent deemed the non-resident parent, or paying parent), does not provide day to day care to a lesser extent than the other parent (the resident parent, or receiving parent).
The CMS tend not to investigate the details sufficiently to identify if care is provided to a lesser extent, and typically use receipt of Child Benefit as a deciding factor, which, as shown below in the setting out of Regulation 50 is
Regulation 50 of the Child Support Maintenance Calculation Regulations 2012:
50.—(1) Where the circumstances of a case are that—
(a) an application is made by a person with care under section 4 of the 1991 Act M1; and
(b) the person named in that application as the non-resident parent of the qualifying child also provides a home for that child (in a different household from the applicant) and shares the day to day care of that child with the applicant,
the case is to be treated as a special case for the purposes of the 1991 Act.
(2) For the purposes of this special case, the person mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) is to be treated as the non-resident parent if, and only if, that person provides day to day care to a lesser extent than the applicant.
(3) Where the applicant is receiving child benefit in respect of the qualifying child the applicant is assumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to be providing day to day care to a greater extent than any other person.
[F1(4) For the purposes of paragraph (3), where a person has made an election under section 13A(1) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (election not to receive child benefit) for payments of child benefit not to be made, that person is to be treated as receiving child benefit.]
There are a number of points a parent can evidence to demonstrate day to day care is undertaken to a lesser/greater extent than the other parent to help inform the decision regarding 50/50 Equal Shared Care vs. Shared Care Band Equal.
The CSA Shared Care guidelines, now CMS Shared Care guidelines, set out how child maintenance equal shared care is defined.
Our consultants, fully versed with Regulation 50 and the CMS’ jurisdictions, can help you with ensuring the CMS assess your case to be 50/50 Equal Shared Care (as opposed to Shared Care Band Equal), saving the paying parent significant costs otherwise payable through a CMS case, and having the case closed.