Family Law Hub

Children Act 1989, Sch1

Latest updates

  • The unmarried couple had been in a relationship from 1995 until 2017. They had two children, aged 14 and 19, and had bought a four-bedroom home in Oxfordshire. Both parties were still residing in the property, although the mother was mostly restricted to a bedroom with an en suite bathroom. She had applied for a declaration under section 14 of ToLATA for declaration of the parties’ respective beneficial entitlement, and an order for sale. The father had made an application under Schedule 1 of the Children’s Act 1989 for the applicant’s share of the property to be held on trust for the benefit of the parties’ son until such time as he finished education. One working day before the final hearing, the father conceded that the declaration of beneficial interest should be of 50% shares in the property, leaving the issue of whether the property should be sold, and if so, when. The mother argued for a sale as soon as possible, while the father wished it to be deferred for seven or eight years. HHJ Vincent's impression was that the father did not have a good grasp of the financial implications of the situation and did not like the thought of change, and so had not let himself think about the practical consequences of having to leave the home. HHJ Vincent was also concerned that the younger child's welfare needs were not being met by the current situation. The property would be put on the open market and sold for the best price that could be obtained, although the parties could also consider whether one party might be able to buy out the other’s share. As to costs, the usual order in family cases would be no order as to costs, but this was an application made under Schedule 1 of the Children’s Act 1989, and so the unsuccessful party would pay the costs of the successful party. Judgment, 22/06/2020, free
  • In the midst of the Coronavirus outbreak (‘Covid-19’), there has been little guidance as to what social workers should do when they are refused entry into the home of a child in care (or ‘looked after child’), due to the parent’s arguments that they are self-isolating or claiming that they have contracted the virus. There is a real risk that families may be using Covid-19 as an excuse to avoid contact with the Local Authority and therefore, places any children involved at risk of further abuse. News, 03/04/2020, free
  • In the midst of the Coronavirus outbreak (‘Covid-19’), there has been little guidance as to whether Local Authorities have the ability to suspend contact between a child in their care and parties who have a right to contact with that child, either by parental responsibility or by a Court order. News, 03/04/2020, free
  • Husband's appeal against the refusal of a stay of the wife's applications under ToLATA in respect of the parties' former matrimonial home, and under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 for a school fees order and child maintenance, was dismissed. Judgment, 13/11/2018, free
  • The father's application to discharge an order for periodical payments in respect of the child was allowed as the child now lived with the father in Canada. However, the judge made an order that the mother should be provided with funds to buy a house in England so that the child could visit, albeit the sum was far lower than that which had been previously ordered when the child lived with her. Judgment, 02/08/2018, free

Latest know-how

  • In a tweet: Payment of an enforcement fund was ordered where the court anticipated F would not comply with Schedule 1 orders Case note, 06/08/2018, members only
  • In a tweet: “Capitalised” child maintenance ordered in Schedule 1 proceedings Case note, 06/08/2018, members only
  • Standard family order as approved by the President 30 November 2017 Order, 19/01/2018, members only
  • In a tweet: Mostyn J calls for re-introduction of “assets” ground for varying CM calculation Case note, 29/09/2017, free
  • In a tweet: Immediate absolute charging order made to enforce Schedule 1 capital award Case note, 12/06/2017, members only

Latest training

  • Alexis Campbell QC and Charlotte Trace, of 29 Bedford Row, review the key financial remedy cases and themes from the past 12 months and look at how they will affect judicial thinking and your own cases in the year to come. Webcast, 16/03/2018, members only
  • In this webcast, which was first presented on 18 June 2015, Richard Tambling from 29 Bedford Row talks about Schedule 1 cases and the most recent developments in this area of law Webcast, 31/07/2015, members only
  • Webcast recorded on 22 January at 1pm. Lysney Cade-Davies and Petra Teacher of 29 Bedford Row review some of the leading cases of 2014 and highlight the lessons for the year ahead. Webcast, 22/01/2015, members only
  • Webcast, 26/07/2012, members only

Copyright 

Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.

Disclaimer

The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.

Bookmark this item