PS v CS
[2023] EWFC 323 (B)
MP v FB (application under schedule 1 Children Act 1989)
19 February 2024
[2024] EWFC 63 (B)
Family Court
Two separated parents argued about money for their child. The dad is richer. The mom bought a house she doesn't live in, making things harder. The judge ordered the dad to give the mom money to buy a new house for the child and her. The dad gets the money back when the child is grown. The judge also gave the mom some extra money for other things, but not all the things she asked for.
Key Facts
- •A mother and father separated after an eleven-year relationship.
- •They have a twelve-year-old son, [child C].
- •The mother brought a Schedule 1 Children Act 1989 application for financial provision for [child C].
- •The father has significantly more financial resources than the mother.
- •The mother's purchase of a property in [City X] and subsequent refusal to sell it caused much of the dispute.
- •The mother's mental health and lack of work contributed to the financial difficulties.
- •The main point of contention was provision for housing for [child C] and the mother.
Legal Principles
Schedule 1 Children Act 1989 allows courts to make orders for the benefit of a child, considering various financial factors.
Schedule 1 Children Act 1989
Welfare of the child is a significant factor but not paramount in Schedule 1 applications; the court must consider the father's resources and standard of living.
Re P (a child: financial provision) [2003] EWCA Civ 837
Periodical payments cannot be made under Schedule 1 unless a maximum child support assessment is made or agreed upon.
Section 8 Child Support Act 1991
Lump sum awards cannot circumvent the prohibition on periodical payments; they should be for genuinely capital expenditure.
Green v Adams (no 1) [2017] 2 FLR 1413
Lump sum orders for housing should revert to the payer when the child turns eighteen or finishes full-time education.
Stacey v McNicholas [2022] EWHC 278 (Fam)
Long-term outright capital provision for a child is only made in exceptional circumstances.
The court can consider offers and negotiation in awarding costs in Schedule 1 applications.
Outcomes
The father to pay a lump sum of £150,000 for housing, reverting to him when [child C] finishes secondary education or turns eighteen.
This amount, combined with the mother's resources, is deemed sufficient for housing needs, considering the mother's capacity for future employment.
A further lump sum payment of £20,000 to cover expenses (housing, car).
Covers immediate needs and partially accounts for existing debts and future car expenses.
The father to pay school fees, reasonable extras, extracurricular activities, and partially contributes to school uniform and sports equipment.
Agreed upon by parties for education and activities of the child.
Other claims by the mother for various expenses were rejected.
These were deemed to be maintenance claims, not eligible under Schedule 1.