Applications under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989

Jurisdiction and scope

Maintenance provisions under section 15 and Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) may be used where a case falls outside the jurisdiction of statutory maintenance via the Child Maintenance Service. A parent, step-parent, guardian or person named in a child arrangements order as a person with whom the child is to live may apply for the range of orders under ChA 1989, Sch 1.

See Practice Note: Maintenance provision for children under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989.

A lump sum order may be made under ChA 1989, Sch 1 for past expenditure, for example the reimbursement of expenses connected with the birth and for future expenditure, for example for a family car or a school fees fund. A transfer or settlement of property order can be made once to provide a home for a child.

See Practice Note Capital provision under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989.

The following Precedent letter may be sent by practitioners to their clients: Financial arrangements for children—client guide.

Children

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Family News

MAC publishes family visa financial requirements review

The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) has published its report on the minimum income requirement (MIR) for the partner migration route recommending that the MIR is not matched to the skilled worker route and making recommendations for different calculations that could be used instead and recommendations to improve the way the MIR is evidenced. This news piece sets out the key points in the report.

Family weekly highlights—5 June 2025

This week's edition of the Family weekly highlights includes analysis of a decision concerning the additional considerations for older intended parents considering international surrogacy. Recent judgments on domestic abuse, applications to set aside return orders and assessment of a solicitor’s conduct where there were issues of client capacity are also included.

Additional considerations for older intended parents considering international surrogacy (Mr and Mrs K v Mr and Mrs Z)

Family analysis: In Mr and Mrs K v Mr and Mrs Z the court considered an application for a parental order by the intended parents, (the applicants), who were both aged 72 at the time of their application. The child had been born via a surrogacy arrangement in California. While all elements of section 54 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (HFEA 2008) criteria had been met, Mrs Justice Knowles expressed her concern, at the first hearing, that the applicant’s statements did not sufficiently detail the arrangements for the child’s care should they die or lose capacity during the child’s minority. The court was required to consider the child’s lifelong welfare interests when deciding whether to make a parental order and was obliged to examine carefully what arrangements had been made to secure the child’s welfare should incapacity or death befall either of the applicants. Natalie Sutherland, partner and head of Modern Families at Burgess Mee Family Law considers the decision.

Family weekly highlights—29 May 2025

This week's edition of the Family weekly highlights includes analysis of the implications of the Family Justice Council guidance on covert recordings in children proceedings. Recent judgments on adoption, anonymisation and an application to vary a transparency order and the Court of Appeal’s consideration of an appeal against a summary return order are also included.