J v C
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 1998 |
| Year | 1998 |
| Date | 1998 |
| Court | Family Division |
Financial provision – Unmarried parents – Relationship breaking down after birth of child – Subsequently father winning £1.4m on national lottery – Assessment made for contribution under Child Support Act 1991 – Mother applying for lump sum and settlement of property orders – Factors to be taken into account when considering financial provision – Children Act 1989, Sch 1, paras 1 and 4.
The parents, who were not married to one another, had a relationship which began in 1992. They had a daughter who was born in February 1994. Soon after the daughter’s birth the relationship ended. In September 1995 the father won £1.4m on the national lottery. As a result, he bettered his standard of living by purchasing a luxurious house and car and investing his capital to provide him with income. He was a single man living on his own and he had four other children from two previous relationships for whom he paid maintenance. The mother had two older daughters from a previous relationship. She and her family were wholly supported from public funds and lived in rented accommodation. In 1996 the Child Support Agency made an assessment under the Child Support Act 1991 for the father to pay contributions in respect of the daughter born in 1994. The mother applied under para 4(1) of Sch 1 to the Children Act 1989, which provided that the court was required to have regard to all the circumstances of the case including the financial resources and needs of both parents and the financial needs of the child when deciding how to exercise its powers under para 1, for a lump sum, transfer and settlement of property orders for the benefit of the child.
Held – A child was entitled to be brought up in circumstances which bore some sort of relationship with the father’s current resources and his present standard of living as parents were responsible for their children throughout their dependency. The fact that such riches came after the break up of the relationship could not affect that. In the present case the terms of the 1991 Act prevented the court from ordering periodical payments but not from ordering lump sums and settlement of property under para 1 of Sch 1 to the 1989 Act. Applying para 4(1) of Sch 1 to the facts, it was obvious that the child required a home, full-time care, and had other needs including transport. The child’s needs for a carer enabled account to be taken of the caring parent’s needs, in this case, in particular, for accommodation rather than for maintenance. Having regard to the father’s resources and his obligations to his other children he should provide a lump sum of £70,000 for the purchase of a suitable home for the child where she could live with her mother and half-sisters, the property
to be held on trust for the child to live in while she was dependent and then revert to the father. Also, the father should provide lump sums totalling £21,000 for the furnishing and maintenance of the house and for the mother to purchase a car.
Cases referred to in judgmentA v A (financial provision for child) [1995] 1 FCR 309.
Chamberlain v Chamberlain [1974] 1 All ER 33, [1973] 1 WLR 1557, CA.
H v P (illegitimate child: capital provision) (1993) 23 Fam Law 515.
Haroutunian v Jennings (1980) 1 FLR 62, DC.
Kiely v Kiely [1988] 1 FLR 248, CA.
Lilford (Lord) v Glynn [1979] 1 All ER 441, [1979] 1 WLR 78, CA.
Phillips v Pearce[1996] 2 FCR 237.
T v S (financial provision for children) [1994] 1 FCR 743.
ApplicationThe mother, who was not married to the father of her child, made an application under s 15 of and Sch 1 to the Children Act 1989 for lump sum, transfer and settlement of property orders against him when he won £1.4m on the national lottery after their relationship had ended. The case was heard and judgment was given in chambers. The case is reported with permission of Hale J. The facts are set out in the judgment.
Estella Hindley QC and Christopher James (instructed by R Gwynne & Sons, Telford) for the mother.
Ian Karsten QC (instructed by Salhan Nijjar, Birmingham) for the father.
HALE J.This is a mother’s application under s 15 of and Sch 1 to the Children Act 1989 for a lump sum, transfer and settlement of property orders for the benefit of her daughter, T. T was born on 16 February 1994 and so is now aged three years and nearly two months.
The reason for the application is that in September 1995 T’s father won around £1.4m on the national lottery. He has bettered his standard of living considerably as a result. The mother, therefore, looks to him to make reasonable provision from the proceeds of his good fortune for his daughter.
The parents were not married to one another. There is some confusion about when their relationship began, but it appears to have been in the summer of 1992, about 18 months before T was born. Both parties retained their own addresses and the father spent varying amounts of time at the mother’s home.
There is an issue about whether or not T was a wanted child. The mother says that she was very much so as she had had a previous termination of a pregnancy with the father. But she also says that she had asked the father to leave her home shortly before she became pregnant. The father says that he had suggested a termination of this pregnancy, not least because the girl that he had left to be with the mother was also pregnant.
There is also an issue about how long the relationship continued after T’s birth. The mother says that the father used to call twice a day and take her to hospital to visit T. T was premature and in hospital for some time after she was born. The mother also says that the relationship improved for a while after T came home: T brought them closer together. But it finally broke up when the baby was about eight months’ old. The father says that there was not a relationship after T’s birth.
It is clear, on any view, that their relationship fluctuated in quality and that it was what lawyers often term a turbulent one. Each makes allegations of violence against the other. It is obvious that in any violent encounter between them the mother would come off worse because the father is big and apparently strong. This has not been investigated in any detail, but he agrees that they had fights and that he damaged some of the property in her home, although not to the extent that she alleges.
If I had to resolve the issue of whether or not T was a wanted child and the nature of the relationship between the parents, I would do so essentially in favour of the mother’s account, not least because the father has already seriously misled the court by concealing assets and has sought throughout these proceedings to minimise or evade any responsibility towards his daughter.
However, although para 4(1) of Sch 1 to the 1989 Act tells me to consider all the circumstances, I do not consider that any great weight should be attached either to the circumstances of T’s birth or to the length or quality of her parent’s relationship. There is nothing in the private law provisions to distinguish between different children on such grounds. The policy of the Child Support Act 1991 was that people who had children should support them, whether or not those were wanted children. As a general proposition children should not suffer because their parents are irresponsible or uncaring towards them. I note that there is an example of an order being made against a father who had wanted the mother to have a termination in Phillips v Pearce[1996] 2 FCR 237.
After the relationship broke down the father made some small contributions towards the household. The mother apparently broke down when she was driving an old car to which she had access and asked the father to help her. He felt sorry for her and so he bought her an old Cortina, but the mother said this did not last very long either. The father says that this was before his lottery win and it sounds likely.
At Christmas 1995, after the win, he took the mother to Toys ‘R’ Us and bought toys to a value of over £100 for T. In February 1996 shortly after T’s second birthday, he came to visit and left £40 for her in cash.
He has, however, made no regular provision. The mother and her family are wholly supported from public funds. She has two older daughters, aged nine and seven, from an earlier relationship. They all live together in a three-bedroomed house rented from a housing association. The mother says that they moved there to be near her family after the relationship with the father ended acrimoniously. I believe her on that.
There was an application made to the Child Support Agency for an assessment before the father’s win. At that time the father’s contribution was assessed as nil because he was then in receipt of benefit. But I note that his first affidavit of means says that when he met the mother he was working as a club doorman and in the car valeting business. It seems to me probable that he had some undeclared cash earnings during his period of receipt of benefit.
Then in March 1996 there...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re N (A Child) (Payments for Benefit of Child)
...Services (Bath) Ltd[2007] EWCA Civ 1002, [2008] 1 All ER 1156n, [2008] 1 FLR 1346, [2008] 1 WLR 1589. J v C (child: financial provision)[1998] 3 FCR 79, [1999] 1 FLR 152. Kiely v Kiely [1988] 1 FLR 248, CA. Lancashire Loans Ltd v Black [1934] 1 KB 380, [1933] All ER Rep 201, CA. Lilford (Lo......
-
MG v FG
...(Fam), [2015] WTLR 1137. F v G (child: financial provision)[2004] EWHC 1848 (Fam), [2005] 1 FLR 261. J v C (child: financial provision)[1998] 3 FCR 79, [1999] 1 FLR MB v KB[2007] EWHC 789 (Fam), [2007] 2 FLR 586. P (a child: financial provision), Re[2003] EWCA Civ 837, [2003] 2 FLR 865. PK ......
-
Hill v Morgan
...Camm (1983) 4 FLR 577, CA. Edgar v Edgar [1980] 3 All ER 887, [1980] 1 WLR 1410, (1981) 2 FLR 19, CA. J v C (child: financial provision) [1998] 3 FCR 79, [1999] 1 FLR P (a child) (financial provision), Re[2003] EWCA Civ 837, [2003] 2 FCR 481, [2003] 2 FLR 865. Smith v Smith[2000] 3 FCR 374,......
-
Huxley v Child Support Offices
...provision for child) [1995] 1 FCR 309, [1994] 1 FLR 657. Haroutunian v Jennings (1977) 1 FLR 62, DC. J v C (child: financial provision)[1998] 3 FCR 79, [1999] 1 FLR Secretary of State for Social Services v Harmon[1999] 1 FCR 213, [1999] 1 WLR 163, [1998] 2 FLR 598, CA. AppealMr Huxley appea......