I am led to believe a court can make a "global" maintenance order regardless of not having jurisdiction for child maintenance; as long as there is an element seen to be spousal maintenance.
In this scenario, say it makes a "global" order for £2000 monthly for 3 years (then a £1 nominal order); after that 3 year period, if the children are still young - can the applicant wife still make a claim for child maintenance? or is that superseded by the global order - and no further maintenance is due?
Presumably the wife can still apply to the CMS for child maintenance after 3 years (can she?)? And would she be successful even if the circumstances since the global order was made are unchanged?
Just want some clarity really. I appreciate the global order won't ever go down (it's there to protect a drop in child maintenance for whatever reason) - BUT could I be in for "more (child) maintenance" after this 3 year global order is over?
This seems to be a reasonable summary and includes relevant cases. Assuming specific wording isn't used and it's set as a normal global order then any subsequent CMS assessment would see the global order reduced by the equivalent amount
"3. In the Child Support Commissioner’s decision CCS 316/1998, Commissioner Jacobs had held that a global order framed in similar terms to that under appeal:
‘[Did] not purport to restrict the right of any person to apply for a maintenance assessment. Indeed, it recognises that right and the supremacy of a child support maintenance assessment. However, it goes on to do what the child support scheme does not cover. It adjusts the absent parent’s overall financial obligations in the light of the child support maintenance assessment. This is a power that is left to the courts. The court order anticipates that a child support maintenance assessment may be made and makes provision to avoid the need for the parties to return to court in order to vary the order for spousal maintenance. This it achieved by tying the payments of maintenance to the parent with care to the absent parent’s liability in respect of their children, so that if the latter increased the former reduced. There is general support for my conclusion that this is not caught by section 9(4) of the Child Support Act 1991 in Smith v McInerney  2 FLR 1077’ (pars 46)"
child maintenance is a statutory requirement. It is separate from any financial order. A global maintenance order may be superseded by a cm assessment if the figure is larger.
Once the global order has expired, cm would still be payable for children who are still in secondary education. It is the CMS that deals with cm.
The court can only deal with child maintenance for a year then the jurisdiction hands over to the CMS.
The name escapes me now but there is a type of global order that is reduced pound per pound based on the CMS assessment. For instance, if the global order was £2000 and the CMS assessed at £600, the global order would be reduced to £1400 although the payments would still total £2000.