G v W

In a Children Act 1989 Schedule 1 application, childcare provision must be assessed consistently with the parties’ agreed financial presentation. A court should not treat the same sum as meeting both existing liabilities and childcare costs. Where the child’s welfare and the circumstances justify it, additional provision for third-party childcare may be ordered, even where substantial housing, maintenance and educational provision has already been agreed. The court may structure the provision as periodical payments rather than a lump sum where that better protects its intended use. Past childcare expenditure may be recognised but reduced where it was incurred despite an earlier order or direction excluding such provision. Childcare sought to enable the parent to rebuild a career does not fall within the Schedule 1 scheme.

The mother appealed from an order made by Recorder Chandler QC in financial proceedings under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989. The parties had agreed substantial provision for their young child, including a housing fund, periodical payments, education costs and a car. The remaining disputes included the mother’s liabilities and her claim for past and future nanny costs.

The recorder declined to make separate provision for a nanny and used a backdated periodical payments award principally to clear commercial borrowings. Permission to appeal was granted on the childcare and commencement issues. The central questions were whether the mother required additional provision for third-party childcare and how that provision should be structured.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The appeal succeeded on the nanny provision. The mother’s renewed applications concerning other matters were refused.
2. The recorder had treated £60,000 as both reimbursing childcare costs and meeting commercial debts. The same sum could not properly serve both purposes. His approach also conflicted with the parties’ express agreement that the existing £8,000 monthly maintenance was exclusive of third-party childcare costs. The appellate court was therefore entitled to reconsider the childcare issue.
3. Although the mother’s health difficulties were not severe, she had not previously lived alone, would receive no childcare assistance from the father, and was moving to a new home. Some extraneous childcare was reasonable. The request for two full nanny days each week was excessive, however.
4. The father was ordered to fund 16 hours of childcare weekly at £20 per hour, producing £1,386 monthly until the child started school in September 2025. From then until September 2031, provision reduced to £1,040 monthly. No provision was made beyond that date. Additional costs were to be met from the existing monthly allowance.
5. Past costs of nearly £49,000 were accepted as incurred, but no reimbursement was ordered for voluntary payments to the mother’s own mother. The professional nanny costs were backdated to January 2021, but the resulting sum was reduced to £10,000 because the expenditure had been incurred despite the court’s prior refusal to provide for it.
6. Childcare costs claimed to enable the mother to restart her career did not fit within the Schedule 1 scheme. The court otherwise upheld the recorder’s discretionary approach, including the costs clawback and refusal to provide for the mother’s other debts, medical treatment or additional security.

The judgment describes an appeal from an order of Recorder Chandler QC. The appeal was allowed only to the extent that additional nanny provision was ordered; permission was otherwise refused or renewed permission was rejected.