MP v FB (application under schedule 1 Children Act 1989)
[2024] EWFC 63 (B)
PS v CS
25 September 2023
[2023] EWFC 323 (B)
Family Court
Two parents fought in court over money for their kids after separating. The dad is rich, the mom isn't working much. The judge decided how much the dad should pay the mom to look after the children, for housing, and other things. The dad had to pay a lot of money to the mom, but not everything she wanted.
Key Facts
- •Schedule 1 Children Act 1988 application regarding financial provision for three children.
- •Parents, M (mother) and F (father), separated in 2018 and have a shared care arrangement.
- •Three jointly owned properties were sold, with proceeds in escrow.
- •F is a high-earning financial consultant; M has significantly lower income.
- •Significant legal costs incurred by both parties (£500,000 approx).
- •Disputes over various financial matters including housing, maintenance, and legal fees.
Legal Principles
Orders must be for the benefit of the child, considering various factors including income, earning capacity, property, financial needs and responsibilities of each parent and child, and the child's education.
Schedule 1, paragraph 4(1) Children Act 1988
Schedule 1 award is discretionary, balancing statutory factors and considering all circumstances; court's power construed widely if benefiting mother also benefits child.
Case law
In high-value cases, a broad, common-sense assessment of the mother's budget should be used, without getting bogged down in detail.
Re P (A Child: Financial Provision) [2003] EWCA Civ 837
A Household Expenditure Child Support Award (HESCA) may extend beyond direct children's expenses to support the mother's household where she cannot cover expenses from her own means, but excludes expenses unrelated to her caregiving role.
Collardeau v Fuchs [2022] EWFC 135
The James v Seymour formula for child maintenance is irrelevant in HESCA cases or where need and lifestyle arguments emerge.
James v Seymour and Collardeau v Fuchs
Outcomes
Housing: £335,319 lump sum for M, plus stamp duty; charge on property, realisable upon youngest child's completion of secondary education; M has option to buy out F's interest.
Balances M's needs with F's financial resources; avoids disproportionately high housing cost while acknowledging some reduction in pre-separation standard of living.
Child maintenance: £3000/month, reducing to £0 upon youngest child completing secondary education.
Reflects F's high income, need to support M while she increases her income, balances lifestyle expectations and addresses M's perceived underemployment.
Car: £15,000 towards replacement car in 2024.
Acknowledges need for new car but avoids excessive cost, considering F's resources and M's current vehicle.
Moving and furniture costs: £10,000 lump sum.
Covers necessary expenses.
Liabilities: £23,450.42 to clear M's debts (excluding loan from partner).
Addresses M's financial needs related to debts incurred during co-parenting period.
Legal fees: No reimbursement.
M has paid costs, no demonstrated need, and reimbursement would primarily benefit M, not the children.
Backdated child maintenance and rental reimbursement: No award.
No prior court order for backdated maintenance; rental costs covered from escrow and F's funds.
Future rental costs: £18,000 (6 months) paid monthly, ceasing upon house purchase.
Covers children's housing needs during house purchase period; balances F's high income with the interim need.
Orthodontic Treatment: No provision.
Dispute reflects co-parenting issues not a financial issue for the court to manage.