Reg 20 (2) deciding parental responsibility when there is a shared residence order

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #45456
    mark beale
    Participant

    I have a case where there is a shared residence order as follows:

    With the applicants mother from Friday after school to Monday morning weeks 1-3.

    From school each Tuesday until 6.00 pm

    Equivalent times during school holidays plus 50% of time for the remainder of the school holidays.

    —————————————————————————————————

    This has been challenged on the basis that if you exclude time when the child is at school then the mother has more time than the father.

    Has anyone else come across such an argument?

    Child Benefit is with the mother but I think that was arranged due to the financial situation of the father compared to the mother, not who had more parental responsibility more of the time.

    My argument would be that parental responsibility would be with the father during school time?

    Thoughts/guidance would be appreciated

     

     

    #127984
    liffe
    Participant

    Sounds like a tiebreaker…

    #128036
    trace2.0
    Participant

    I believe this has been looked at before and as far as I can remember if there is 50/50 shared residency and both parents were applying for housing benefit then we would add the children to the claim of whoever was receiving the child benefit and invite the other parent to claim dhp for the extra bedroom requirement.

    #128052
    sjhall
    Participant

    funny enough I had a similar case only yesterday. CHB was paid to the mother, but the father had the bulk of the custody. Nothing we could do for the father except offer him DHP.

    #128054
    John Boxall
    Participant

    Child Benefit should only be used as a ‘tie breaker’ If father has the bulk of the custody then he should get the appropriate allowances

    Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery. The blossom is blighted, the leaf is withered, the god of day goes down upon the dreary scene, andโ€”and in short you are for ever floored.

    Wilkins Micawber, Ch12 David Copperfield

    #128055
    sjhall
    Participant

    at this stage John, we only have the fathers say so that he has the majority of the custody. I would have to investigate further before being happy to remove the mothers dependants allowances on her claim.

    #128064
    peterdelamothe
    Keymaster

    CH/0794/2007

    for recent caselaw on this point.

    #128125
    david farrar
    Participant

    have you seen a copy of the residence order?

    #128127
    mark beale
    Participant

    Yes the residence order stipulates the times as in the original posting.

    #154554
    mmayet
    Participant

    Hi all,

     

    What decision was made with regards to this, and did it go to Tribunal? ๐Ÿ˜Ž

    #154557
    mark beale
    Participant

    Went to Upper Tribunal CH/2605/2013.

    #154559
    mmayet
    Participant

    Thank you. That was rather interesting…OP to be made non-recoverable ๐Ÿ™ !!

    #158538
    Kay_Tade
    Participant

    [quote=mark beale]Went to Upper Tribunal CH/2605/2013.[/quote]

     

    Hi Mark, just wondered if you have the neutral citation number to this case?

     

    Thanks, Kay. (I have sent a PM as well)

    #158539
    danielblummers
    Participant

    Lets hope the parent who doesn't receive CHB hasnt got a MPTL in place!!

Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.