header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
20 September 2024 / Samantha Farndale , Tara Lyons
Issue: 8086 / Categories: Features , Family , Divorce , Child law
printer mail-detail

Financial provision for children: needs must

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
189730
Samantha Farndale & Tara Lyons analyse two Schedule 1 cases, both showing the court’s focus on needs in relation to financial provision for children
  • This article explains the purpose of the Children Act 1989, Sch 1, which is often used when the parties have not been married.
  • It sets out the approach of the court in PS v CS [2023] EWFC 323 (B), a modest asset Sch 1 case, and the high-profile case of footballer Kyle Walker and his mistress Lauryn Goodman, both of which highlight the court’s focus on the genuine needs of the children.

The purpose of Sch 1 to the Children Act 1989 is to allow the court to make financial provision for the children of separating parents, or parents who are not married. Claims are usually, although not always, made when the resident parent seeks financial support from the (wealthier) non-resident parent. This can be in relation to education and child maintenance, and can include periodic payments or a lump sum.

It

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll