Hi all,
I have an interesting situation
I have a 11 year old daughter who lives with me 50/50, agreed with through court a few years ago. Her mother claims the child benefit and through CMS they have agreed I do not have to make payments due to shared custody. Although through her mums account I pay £50 a month to cover her school fees and after school clubs.
I also have a 3year old son with another ex, but I don't see him due to the mother living a very long distance away. I pay full maintenance for him (not an issue)
However the issue is that the CMS don't include my 11 year daughter into his payments at all. She's s not classed as a 'dependent' who lives with me as its only 50/50 (and because I don't receive the benefit) nor is she classed a paid for child because the CMS have told me I don't need to pay for her.
So I have to pay for my son as if my daughter doesn't exist?
Bizarre and doesn't sound right to me.
Thoughts?
“Her mother claims the child benefit and through CMS they have agreed I do not have to make payments due to shared custody.”
How did you get CMS to agree with this? Which information did you provide?
Hi there
I’ve had a quick look at the CMS guidelines and it says that they take account of looked after children that the paying parent gets child benefit for, I guess that’s the rule they are applying... check page 13 of the link below
Perhaps you can ask them to look at it again.
Thanks Mojo. I will write a letter back in response now rather than calling their phone lines where the person clearly knows sweet F all about CMS own policies
Hi hubs
So my 11 year olds mother tried going through CMS for payments. However I provided a copy of our shared care agreement (which went through the family court) to the CMS and they wrote back to me and ex partner notifying her that I wouldn't need to make payments as share is equal.
This just shows how unjoined up the CMS can be! Too often it’s down to the individual interpretation of the rules .. or should I say misinterpretation!
In theory, the complaints or appeals process should iron out the anomalies (and educate case workers whose decision is overturned), but I suspect that doesn't happen either.