Disputes about children are always emotionally charged. When those disputes become intertwined with child maintenance, positions can quickly harden — particularly where one parent seeks a 50:50 shared care arrangement and the other opposes it.
In many cases, arguments about equal shared care are not solely about parenting time. They also carry financial consequences.
Without careful handling, this can create a difficult dynamic:
Children arrangements become battlegrounds for financial leverage
Disputes arise over the exact number of overnight stays
Financial matters stall while parenting issues are contested
Children experience prolonged uncertainty
This is precisely the type of situation where mediation can make a significant difference.
The Legal Backdrop: Why 50:50 Now Carries Greater Weight
The recent decision in OS v DT, given by HHJ Hess and certified as citable, has clarified an important legal point.
Where parents share care of their children exactly equally, the Child Maintenance Service (CMS) does not have jurisdiction under regulation 50 of the Child Support Maintenance Calculation Regulations 2012.
Because of this:
The statutory bar in sections 8(1) and 8(3) of the Child Support Act 1991 does not apply.
The court’s powers revive under section 23(1)(d) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
Parents do not need to apply to the CMS first.
In simple terms:
If care is truly 50:50, the court — not the CMS — may decide child maintenance.
That clarification is legally significant. But it also increases the stakes in shared care disputes.
Why This Can Increase Conflict
The financial reality is straightforward.
Under the statutory scheme, child maintenance depends on:
The paying parent’s income
The number of children
The number of nights the child spends with each parent
If care is 49/51, the CMS applies.
If care is 50/50, the CMS cannot act.
That single percentage point can determine:
Whether maintenance is payable at all
Whether the matter is handled administratively or litigated in court
The risk is that:
Parenting time becomes scrutinised for jurisdictional advantage
Overnight calculations become contested
The focus shifts from welfare to strategy
This is where conflict can escalate unnecessarily.
Mediation: Shifting the Focus Back to Children
Mediation offers a different pathway.
Rather than debating whether care is 49% or 50% in order to gain a financial advantage, mediation allows parents to:
Explore what arrangement genuinely works for their children
Discuss financial realities transparently
Understand the legal framework without weaponising it
Develop practical, bespoke solutions
Importantly, mediation recognises that children arrangements and financial provision are intrinsically linked — a point reinforced in Dickson v Rennie.
Housing needs, school fees, extracurricular activities and day-to-day costs all flow from the parenting structure. Trying to resolve one without the other often causes delay and mistrust.
What OS v DT Demonstrates in Practice
In OS v DT, although jurisdiction was established, the court declined to order regular maintenance. The parents shared care equally and both had substantial capital and earning capacity.
Instead, the court made a targeted order: the father was to meet 75% of the school fees.
This shows something important:
Even when maintenance is not appropriate, children’s financial needs still require thoughtful, tailored solutions.
Mediation is ideally suited to crafting those solutions — without the stress, cost and polarisation of litigation.
Avoiding the “Strategic” Trap
Now that equal shared care carries jurisdictional consequences, there is a risk that disputes may increasingly focus on:
Precise overnight counts
Technical definitions of day-to-day care
Tactical positioning
Mediation helps to prevent this by:
Encouraging transparency about financial concerns
Allowing both parents to express underlying anxieties
Refocusing discussions on long-term co-parenting
Reducing the adversarial framing that court proceedings can create
Where parents feel heard and informed, they are less likely to adopt entrenched positions.
A Child-Focused, Future-Focused Approach
The welfare of the child remains paramount. But welfare is best served by:
Stability
Reduced parental conflict
Clear and workable financial arrangements
A cooperative co-parenting relationship
Litigation can sometimes be necessary. However, many disputes about shared care and maintenance stem from misunderstanding, fear or financial uncertainty — issues that mediation can address constructively.
Conclusion
OS v DT [2025] EWFC 156 (B) brings clarity to child maintenance law in cases of exactly equal shared care. It confirms that:
The CMS has no jurisdiction in true 50:50 arrangements
The court’s powers revive
Parties can apply directly to court
But with clarity comes increased risk of tactical dispute.
Mediation offers a way to navigate these complex intersections between care and finance without escalating conflict. By addressing both issues together — transparently and constructively — parents can avoid delay, reduce stress and keep their children’s wellbeing at the centre of decision-making.
Early legal advice and mediation support can help clarify your position from the outset and prevent strategic disputes from taking hold.
For more information about our family mediation services, please contact one of our specialists here:
https://lawtap.com/uk/secure/law-firms/174-family-law/lawyers
