Former Leicester City Captain Wes Morgan, the CMS and Child Maintenance: A Landmark Reminder for High-Income Cases

Recent Court of Appeal proceedings involving former Premier League footballer Wes Morgan have attracted significant attention within the family law community and have highlighted important issues regarding the interaction between the Child Maintenance Service (CMS) and court-ordered child maintenance.

While the case concerns a well-known former footballer, the issues before the court are relevant to many separated families, particularly where a parent has a high income and child maintenance arrangements involve both the CMS and the Family Court.

The background

The case involved two mothers who each have a child with Wes Morgan. Following his retirement from professional football, Morgan informed the CMS that he was unemployed. As a result, the CMS reduced his child maintenance liability to a nil assessment from September 2021.

Subsequent proceedings, however, revealed that Morgan continued to receive income. A First-tier Tribunal found that his annual earnings were between approximately £220,000 and £240,000 over several years. The Court also heard evidence that he had rental income, and Morgan later acknowledged in a witness statement that the nil-rate CMS assessment had been incorrect because he had other sources of income.

The mothers sought to recover substantial child maintenance arrears, reported to be approximately £137,000 each.

The legal issue

The key issue before the Court of Appeal was whether a CMS review or reassessment creates an entirely new maintenance calculation, thereby bringing existing court-ordered “top-up” child maintenance arrangements to an end.

Morgan argued that the CMS nil-rate assessment effectively superseded the previous arrangements and prevented the recovery of arrears under the existing court orders.

The Court of Appeal rejected that argument. The Court held that a maintenance calculation continues unless brought to an end by a specific statutory event. A review or revision may alter the existing calculation, but it does not automatically extinguish related court orders or create an entirely new maintenance regime.

Why this matters

The judgment provides important clarification regarding the interaction between CMS assessments and top-up maintenance orders in higher-income cases.

Many parents assume that a CMS assessment automatically replaces court involvement in child maintenance. In reality, the position can be more nuanced. The CMS has primary jurisdiction in relation to child maintenance for most children living in England and Wales, but the Family Court continues to have certain powers, particularly in higher-income cases.

The CMS calculation formula considers income up to £3,000 gross per week. Where a parent’s income exceeds that threshold, the Family Court may make a “top-up” order requiring additional child maintenance above the CMS calculation.

This judgment confirms that a CMS review does not necessarily bring those additional court-ordered obligations to an end.

Wider lessons for parents

Cases involving high earners often involve more complex financial arrangements than those encountered in standard CMS assessments. Rental income, company structures, dividends, trusts and other assets can all create disputes regarding a parent’s true financial position.

In practice, where concerns arise regarding the accuracy of a CMS assessment, the receiving parent may need to challenge that assessment through the tribunal or court process. This can be time-consuming and costly, making it all the more important for both parties to provide accurate financial information from the outset.

The case also serves as an important reminder that:

A relevant decision, but not one that affects every family

It is important to recognise that this case is particularly relevant to parents whose arrangements involve both a CMS calculation and a court-ordered top-up provision. It does not fundamentally alter the position for the majority of separated families whose child maintenance arrangements fall entirely within the standard CMS scheme.

Nevertheless, the judgment provides valuable guidance on how CMS assessments and Family Court orders interact and reinforces the courts’ willingness to ensure that child maintenance arrangements properly reflect a parent’s financial circumstances.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal’s decision in the case involving Wes Morgan provides important clarification regarding the relationship between CMS assessments and top-up child maintenance orders. At its heart, the judgment reinforces a straightforward principle: child maintenance arrangements should reflect a parent’s true financial position and should operate for the benefit of the children they are intended to support.

For family lawyers and parents alike, the case highlights the importance of accurate financial disclosure, careful consideration of CMS assessments, and obtaining specialist advice where maintenance arrangements involve higher incomes or complex financial circumstances.