Factual background
Factual background
On 28 August 2019 the Child Maintenance Service on behalf of the Secretary of State decided that the Father was liable to pay child maintenance to the Mother in respect of both of his children with her from 28 August 2019 in the amount of £42.71 per week (the “Initial CMS Decision”). The Father requested a mandatory reconsideration of the Initial SoS Decision because he said that he and the Mother provided day to day care of the children in equal measure, so e was not the ‘non-resident parent’ and the child support scheme didn’t apply. The Initial CMS Decision was revised and the claim to child maintenance closed from 13 January 2020 (the “2020 CMS Decision”).
On 20 July 2022 the Child Maintenance Service, on behalf of the Secretary of State, superseded the calculation of the Father’s liability to pay child maintenance to the Mother under section 17 of the Child Support Act 1991, deciding that the son was no longer a “qualifying child” from 14 March 2022, with the consequence that from 14 March 2022 the Father was liable to pay child maintenance in respect of their daughter only, and that liability was in the amount of £43.94 per week (the “2022 CMS Decision”).
The Mother appealed the 2020 CMS Decision to the First-tier Tribunal and the Father appealed the 2022 CMS Decision. The appeals were linked and heard together.
I won’t say anything about the First-tier Tribunal proceedings that were set aside, because when I remitted the matter to be reheard it was on the basis that it would be decided by a different judge and that judge would consider the matter entirely afresh.
On 17 October 2023 a District Tribunal Judge of the First-tier Tribunal (the “Tribunal” or the “judge”) heard the linked appeals against the 2020 CMS Decision and the 2022 CMS Decision. The Tribunal:
allowed the Mother’s appeal against the 2020 CMS Decision, and
allowed the Father’s appeal against the 2022 CMS Decision and remade the decision, deciding that the Father was liable to pay £42.71 per week in child maintenance in respect of his daughter
(the “FtT Decision”).
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeals. The decisions of the First-tier Tribunal involved an error of law. Under section 12(2) (a), (b)(i) and (3) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enfo
- These appeals relate to the liability of the Appellant (whom I shall refer to as the “Father” ) to make payments to the Second Respondent (whom I shall refer to as the “Mother” ) in respect of the mai
- I give guidance to the First-tier Tribunal about
- Factual background
- Legal framework
- The First-tier Tribunal’s decision
- The permission stage and the parties’ submissions
- Analysis
- The Tribunal’s fact finding
- Reasons
- What the reasons must cover
- Conclusions
![[2025] UKUT 027 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)