FEARS OF PREJUDICE

In his recent article on child support, district judge Roger Bird states that when the 2000 Act comes fully into force, a consent order for... In his recent article on child support, district judge Roger Bird states that when the 2000 Act comes fully into force, a consent order for a child will no longer oust the jurisdiction of the CSA [Child Support Agency] indefinitely, but would only have this effect for one year (see [2001] Gazette, 22 March, 46).It is my understanding that if consent orders have been made prior to the Act coming into force, then the CSA will never have jurisdiction.

Consent orders made after April 2002 will be subject to the one-year rule, and this must give an incentive to parties wishing to negotiate with increased flexibility to settle before April 2002.

Concerning cases where the paying spouse is a high earner, the new calculations will be so prejudicial as to make it unlikely that they will agree transfers of substantial assets, such as the matrimonial home without some sort of charge back.

This is likely to lead to a dramatic decrease in the number of clean-break cases where the parties have high incomes but only modest assets, and will no doubt be seen as completely unfair where both spouses have careers and substantial earnings.

Penny Raby & Co, Pershore, Worcestershire