PS v CS
[2023] EWFC 323 (B)
Y v Z. Schedule 1
16 January 2024
[2024] EWFC 4
Family Court
A very rich dad and mom split up. Mom wants lots of money for the kids to live well in America. The judge said the mom asked for too much, but gave her a big house, some cash, and a lot of money each year for the kids. The judge made the dad get life insurance just in case, and will deal with any problems later if the dad doesn't pay.
Key Facts
- •Schedule 1 proceedings concerning two children aged 4 and 2.
- •High-conflict separation between a US mother (M) and a Middle Eastern royal family member father (F).
- •Significant disparity in parties' wealth; F is enormously wealthy.
- •Mother seeking relocation to the USA with the children, granted by consent.
- •Extensive litigation costs (£1.5m+ total).
- •Mother's mental health challenges (PTSD, depression, anxiety) and Father's anxiety disorder.
- •Parties' lifestyle during the relationship involved significant luxury and extensive travel.
- •Children had limited exposure to the luxurious lifestyle.
- •Father's assertion of a 'millionaire's defence'.
- •Mother's claims for various capital and income provisions.
- •Extensive evidence presented on standard of living and financial resources.
Legal Principles
Schedule 1 orders must be 'for the benefit of the child'.
Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989
Welfare of the child is a constant influence on the discretionary outcome.
Re P [2003] EWCA Civ 837
Standard of living during the relationship is a material factor, but should not dominate.
Al Maktoum (supra), Collardeau-Fuchs v Fuchs [2022] EWFC 135, Re A (supra)
Claims are typically determined sequentially: property, lump sums, then child maintenance.
Re P (supra)
Child maintenance can broadly include carer's allowance/HECSA.
Re P (supra), Fuchs (supra)
Court can use a broad brush approach in big money cases; detailed budgetary analysis not always required.
Re P (supra), Fuchs (supra)
The overall result should be fair, just and reasonable.
Re P (supra)
Child Support Starting Point table (At A Glance 9B) is a loose starting point, not determinative in high-income cases.
James v Seymour [2023] EWHC 844
Outcomes
$5m housing fund in the USA.
Reasonable considering M's anxieties, need for security, and children's background. Comparable to the value of the family home in the UK, plus potential development and adjacent property purchase costs.
£600,000 lump sum for capital needs (moving costs, furnishing, debts, horse purchase).
Covers necessary expenses; horse provision is partly to facilitate M's earning capacity and wellbeing, and partly to address the possibility that the children might pursue equestrianism.
$250,000 per child annual child maintenance.
Broad assessment of children's needs, considering M's exaggerated budget. Includes provision for school expenses.
Car provision for M and nanny.
Reasonable for practical reasons.
Father to pay for Arabic tuition.
Promotes the children's bi-cultural upbringing.
Life insurance policy for F to secure payments.
Protects the children's financial security in case of F's death.
Adjournment of application for security and further horse-related claims.
F's compliance with interim orders, potential for enforcement proceedings, and the need to avoid further litigation.