Real Stories. Real Results. Clear Legal Support.

The court ordered the ex-husband to resume child maintenance payments, in line with the CMS formula, until the children reached 18 or completed college education.

The court also made a legal services payment order, requiring the ex-husband to pay the mother’s legal costs.

This case highlights how the court can provide financial protection for children in non-traditional family structures, even where a stepparent does not have formal parental status. It also underlines the importance of seeking early legal advice to explore options for child maintenance and legal funding where the CMS does not have jurisdiction.

The parties had previously agreed – outside of court – on how to divide the equity from the sale of the family home. As part of this informal agreement, the wife would retain a flat that she had purchased nine years before cohabitation began, which she argued should be treated as non-matrimonial property. The husband later sought to revisit and revise the original agreement once formal financial proceedings were initiated.

Non-Matrimonial Property
The wife’s flat had been solely purchased and owned well before the marriage. She argued that it should be ring-fenced and excluded from the matrimonial pot for division.

Attempt to Revisit a Prior Agreement
Although the parties had agreed to a fair division of the proceeds from the sale of the family home, the husband attempted to renege on this agreement during court proceedings, seeking a revised share of the total assets.

Dispute Over a School Fees Fund
A portion of the original asset division included a private school fee fund in excess of £100,000 to be set aside, held by the wife for the child’s benefit. The husband claimed half of this fund should be returned to him, despite its clearly defined purpose. He also sought an add-back for having spent approximately £70,000 more than the wife from his original share of the liquid capital.

The court found in favour of the wife, confirming that her flat was non-matrimonial and should not be shared.

The original capital division was upheld as fair and consistent with the parties’ previous intentions.

The school fees fund remained with the wife for the sole benefit of the child, reflecting the court’s focus on children’s welfare.

The husband’s add-back claim was not accepted.

This case highlights how courts in England and Wales approach non-matrimonial assets. It also demonstrates the importance of clear agreements and protecting resources designated for children’s welfare, such as education funds. Early legal advice and strong representation were key in preserving the wife’s position and achieving a fair outcome.

After the parents separated, the father initially had only limited contact with the children, confined to alternate weekends. The mother opposed any increase in contact and made a series of allegations which lacked evidential support. The father sought legal advice and applied to the family court for a Child Arrangements Order to secure a more balanced and meaningful role in his children’s lives

Child Welfare as the Paramount Consideration
As in all private children proceedings, the court’s primary focus was the welfare of the children. The court examined the children’s emotional needs, the quality of their relationships with both parents, and the impact of the conflict on their well-being.

False Allegations and Parental Alienation
The court took into account the mother’s conduct, including making unfounded allegations and attempts to limit the children’s relationship with their father. These behaviours were carefully scrutinised during proceedings and viewed as contrary to the children’s best interests.

Promoting a Meaningful Relationship with Both Parents
The father demonstrated a clear commitment to co-parenting and providing a stable home environment. Expert evidence supported the benefit of both parents playing an equal and active role in the children’s upbringing.

At the final hearing, the court made a Child Arrangements Order providing that:

• The children would live with both parents on an equal shared care basis.
• All school holidays would be divided equally.
• The children’s passports would travel with them and not be retained by either parent.

The outcome recognised the importance of children maintaining strong, consistent relationships with both parents and reinforced the principle that, where safe and appropriate, children benefit from relationships with both parents.

This case highlights how the family courts approach shared care arrangements, particularly in the context of conflict and contested allegations. It also illustrates the value of having clear legal representation to challenge false claims and promote a fair, child-focused outcome. With the right guidance and evidence, it is possible to secure meaningful contact and co-parenting arrangements even in complex or adversarial circumstances.

The mother had strong professional and family ties to Singapore and had secured a new employment opportunity there, which would offer greater financial stability and family support. She applied for leave to remove the children from the jurisdiction under the Children Act 1989, seeking permission from the court to permanently relocate abroad.

The father opposed the move, expressing concern about the impact of reduced contact with the children and raising objections to the move. He was not making any financial contributions to the children’s upbringing at the time of the proceedings.

Best Interests of the Children
The court considered whether the proposed relocation was in the children’s best interests.

Impact on the Primary Carer
The mother’s emotional well-being and ability to provide for the children were key considerations. The court recognised that relocating would significantly improve her circumstances, allowing her to access family support and greater employment prospects.

Maintaining a Relationship with the Father
Although the relocation would make regular direct contact more challenging, the court prioritised maintaining the children’s bond with their father. As a condition of granting the application, the court ordered arrangements for the children to spend extended holidays with their father and regular video contact.

Creative Financial Solution
Given that the father had not been paying child maintenance, the court made a pragmatic order that he would instead fund the children’s return flights for holiday visits, ensuring that contact could still take place without placing a financial burden on the mother.

The court granted the mother permission to relocate with the children to Singapore, emphasising that the move was in their long-term interests. The order included detailed provisions for:

• Holiday contact with the father in the UK;
• Virtual contact arrangements;
• Travel expenses to be covered by the father in lieu of child maintenance

This case demonstrates how the family courts balance a child’s need for stability and development while also maintaining a relationship with both parents in international relocation matters. It also illustrates how creative legal solutions can be used to meet a child’s needs where traditional financial support is lacking. With careful planning and legal advocacy, it is possible to achieve positive outcomes even in complex, family cases with an international element.