A Child, Re (Schedule 1, 1989 Act; Variation)

[2025] EWHC 1254 (Fam)

Case details

Case citations
[2025] EWHC 1254 (Fam)
Court
High Court (Family Division)
Judgment date
23 May 2025
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Family Child financial provision Specific issue orders
Keywords
Schedule 1 Children Act 1989 variation of periodical payments Household Expenditure Child Support Award carer’s allowance child welfare Gillick competence citizenship and passport specific issue order security fund undertakings
Outcome
application granted in part; all other applications dismissed
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

Variation of a periodical payments order under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 requires a fresh discretionary assessment of all the circumstances. A change of circumstances is not an essential precondition. The child’s welfare remains a constant influence, and support for the child may include reasonable expenditure connected with the mother’s caring role, but not expenditure that is purely personal to her.

The court should require evidence directed to the child’s actual needs and the carer’s role. Age alone does not establish that the caring role has materially diminished. A court cannot order a foreign state to grant citizenship or issue a passport. For a Gillick-competent young person approaching adulthood, nationality decisions ordinarily require compelling circumstances and proper evidence of the child’s wishes, welfare and the relevant foreign law.

Factual background

The parties were the mother and father of a seventeen-year-old child. Earlier Schedule 1 orders made by Bodey J in 2013 provided for substantial indexed periodical payments, housing, education costs and other expenses. The mother sought an upward variation for security, a driver and holidays, together with orders requiring the father to assist with registration and a passport in his country of nationality.

The father sought a downward variation, relying on the child’s boarding education, proposed gap year and university attendance, and applied to release his intermediary from undertakings concerning a security fund. The court determined the variation and specific issue applications afresh, and also considered the urgent application concerning the intermediary’s retirement and ill-health.

Held

  1. Periodical payments. The applications to vary the 2013 order upwards and downwards were dismissed. Under paragraphs 1, 4 and 6 of Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989, the court must consider all the circumstances, including the parties’ resources and needs, the child’s needs and education, and any change in relevant matters. The statute does not require the court to find a change of circumstances before exercising its discretion (para [36]).
  2. The child’s welfare remains a constant influence. A Schedule 1 award may support the child by meeting reasonable household expenditure connected with the mother’s role as carer, but must not provide for expenses that are directly personal to the mother and unrelated to that role. The assessment is broad-brush and fact-sensitive (paras [27]-[31], [43]).
  3. The evidence did not establish any need for additional security, a full-time driver or increased holiday provision. The existing award was generous and already covered taxis, occasional drivers, education, property repairs and travel. The father likewise failed to show that the mother’s caring role had materially reduced. The court rejected an assumption that the role diminished substantially merely because the child was seventeen or would take a gap year and attend university. Proper evidence concerning the child and the caring relationship was required (paras [37]-[48]).
  4. Nationality and passport. The specific issue applications were dismissed. The court could not order the foreign authorities to grant citizenship or issue a passport. There was insufficient admissible evidence of the foreign law, the child’s wishes, the effect on existing citizenships or the child’s best interests. Given the child’s age and apparent Gillick competence, and the proximity of adulthood, there were no compelling circumstances justifying an order concerning nationality or citizenship (paras [50]-[55]).
  5. Intermediary’s undertakings. The application to release the intermediary was allowed. In light of his serious illness and intended retirement, no prior financial audit was required before transferring responsibility for the security fund. Russell-Cooke LLP was to give equivalent undertakings. The order preserved the mother’s ability to seek further relief concerning the arrangements or historical dealings (paras [56]-[60]). All other applications were dismissed (para [62]).

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.