Guide · Updated 08/07/2026
Shared care: nights matter, and so does evidence
Overnight care by the paying parent reduces the maintenance figure in fixed bands. Because a single band can move the figure by hundreds of pounds a year, shared care is one of the most disputed inputs — and one where the CMS's default assumptions catch parents out.
The bands
| Overnights per year | Roughly | Band | Reduction |
|---|---|---|---|
| 52–103 | 1 night a week | A | 1/7 |
| 104–155 | 2 nights a week | B | 2/7 |
| 156–174 | 3 nights a week | C | 3/7 |
| 175 or more | Half the time or more | D | 1/2, plus a further £7 a week per child |
The count is of nights the child stays overnight with the paying parent, looked at prospectively over the next 12 months (usually based on the established pattern or any court order). Shared care cannot take a basic/reduced rate liability below £7 a week. A flat-rate payer on benefits with 52+ nights pays nil.
What the law requires the CMS to consider
Regulation 46(4) of the 2012 Regulations is the provision to know by heart. In determining shared care the decision-maker must consider: (a) the terms of any agreement between the parties or any court order providing for contact; or (b) if there is no agreement or order, whether a pattern of shared care has already been established over the past 12 months (or such other period as is appropriate).
The CMS's own Decision Makers Guide (DMG, Vol 1, Ch 11) tells caseworkers the same thing — and adds detail parents are rarely told:
- An agreement does not need to be written or signed. DMG 11003 expressly includes "a verbal agreement providing for contact" alongside written ones. A message exchange settling a rota is evidence of an agreement.
- Agreement between parents beats a court order. If both parents confirm the actual pattern differs from an order, caseworkers can accept that over the order's contents (DMG 11008).
- Same band, no evidence needed. If both parents' counts fall in the same band, no further evidence is required (DMG 11009).
- Hospital and boarding school nights can still count as the paying parent's shared care if the child would otherwise have been with them (DMG 11004, reg 46(5)(c)); night-shift workers can still qualify (DMG 11007).
When parents disagree about the count
Both parents are asked
The CMS seeks each parent's account of the care pattern — ideally in writing.
Where the accounts fall in different bands, evidence is requested
The DMG (11010) directs caseworkers to a narrow list at this stage: a current court order, a formal written agreement, or another official document (Social Services or CAFCASS reports). DMG 11016 goes further and says informal evidence such as diaries or statements from friends "will not be accepted". Do not let that be the end of the road — see the warning below.
Common ground and past patterns
With no formal evidence, caseworkers must look for agreed common ground between the parents' accounts (DMG 11013–11015) and decide on the balance of probabilities — not simply prefer one parent's account.
If it cannot be resolved: assumed shared care
Where parents agree there is shared care but not the nights, the CMS can assume one night a week (Band A) (reg 47(2)–(3); DMG 11011). If your actual care is higher, this default undercounts it — and it is challengeable.
Parents without a court order are routinely told on the phone that "only a court order or signed agreement counts", that the other parent's account will be preferred by default, or even that no mandatory reconsideration is available. All three statements are wrong. Reg 46(4) obliges the decision-maker to consider any agreement (the DMG itself accepts verbal ones) and any established 12-month pattern; every shared-care decision carries full MR and appeal rights under s.20 of the Act; and the DMG's internal restrictions on "informal evidence" do not bind the tribunal, which weighs shared calendars, message exchanges and contemporaneous records on their merits. If a caseworker misstates your rights, put the call details in a formal complaint and proceed with the MR anyway — in writing.
Where a parent provides a home for the child in a different household and shares day-to-day care, regulation 50(1) makes the case a "special case" — and under regulation 50(2) that parent can only be treated as the non-resident parent (and made liable) if they provide day-to-day care to a lesser extent than the other parent. Where care is genuinely equal, no liability arises at all — there is no "non-resident parent".
Two things follow. First, day-to-day care is not the same as overnights: school runs, meals, homework, supporting a child's additional needs at school, clubs, bathing, clothing, medical appointments and routine decision-making all count. A parent can be a night or two short of equal overnights yet still provide equal day-to-day care. Second, this is a high bar in practice: Child Benefit receipt creates a presumption about who has greater care, and the CMS rarely engages with regulation 50 unless it is put squarely — so put it squarely, in writing, itemising what you actually do week by week. If the CMS assesses you anyway without addressing the regulation 50 point, that failure to engage is itself a ground of appeal, and tribunals decide the question on the whole picture.
This is a big enough subject to warrant its own deep dive: Equal care and regulation 50 — the question the CMS must answer first.
Building a shared-care evidence pack
Whether for the CMS or a tribunal, the strongest packs contain: the message exchange or note in which the rota was agreed (however informal); a shared calendar export covering 12+ months showing the actual pattern; any handwritten or emailed care schedules exchanged between you; school pickup and club records naming who had the child; and a short cover letter mapping the evidence to reg 46(4)(a) (agreement) and 46(4)(b) (established pattern). A ready-made cover letter is in the template library.
Checking your decision letter
- Does the letter state the band used? If it is silent, phone and ask, then confirm in writing.
- Was "assumed" care applied without anyone telling you? That often surfaces only in the case file — a subject access request reveals it.
- Has a changed pattern (new court order, child's timetable change) been reported? Band changes are a change of circumstances either parent can report.
- Disagree with the band? Mandatory reconsideration within 30 days of the decision, with your evidence attached.
Sources
| Source | Type | Date | Credibility |
|---|---|---|---|
| CSMC Regulations 2012, regs 46–47, 50 & CSA 1991 Sch 1 para 7 | Primary legislation | As amended | High |
| GOV.UK — How child maintenance is worked out (Step 5: shared care) | Official guidance | Current | High |
| Commons Library CBP-7770 | Parliamentary briefing | Oct 2025 | High |
| CMS Decision Makers Guide, Vol 1, Ch 11 (Shared care), paras 11002–11027 | Official internal guidance (not law) | Current published version | High for CMS practice; guidance cannot override the Regulations |
| CMSAS — 50/50 equal shared care and regulation 50 | Practitioner blog | Jan 2025 | Medium — specialist adviser commentary |