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

Family weekly highlights—23 October 2025

This week's edition of the Family weekly highlights includes details of the speech by the Master of the Rolls addressing AI adoption in the legal profession and digital assets jurisdiction alignment. Recent judgments on gender recognition certificates, cost orders, fact-finding hearings addressing abuse allegations, deeds of revocation replacing a pre-nuptial agreement and applications for summary return orders are also considered. Two new Practice Notes on the procedure for reporting restriction orders and notifying the media via the Press Association Injunction Applications Alert Service have also been added to the media access and transparency subtopic.

MoJ announces plan to repeal presumption of parental involvement from Children Act 1989

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has announced plans to repeal the presumption of parental involvement from sections 1(2A), (2B) and (6) of the Children Act 1989, following publication of a comprehensive review on 22 October 2025. The current provisions require courts to presume in child arrangements and certain private law children proceedings that parental involvement will further a child's welfare unless evidence suggests risk of harm. The review, launched in November 2020 following a recommendation from the Harm Panel Report, examined how courts apply these sections and their impact on children's welfare. The MoJ published a final report alongside supporting research including a literature review, qualitative research on Black, Asian and minority ethnic parents' experiences, and analysis of unpublished court judgments. The government will legislate to repeal the presumption when Parliamentary time allows, with the change intended to prioritise children's safety in family court proceedings.

Imprisonment for contempt of court upheld in Macpherson v Sunderland City Council

Private Client analysis: This case was an appeal against a finding of contempt of court and sentence of imprisonment imposed as a result of that contempt in proceedings in the Court of Protection. The proceedings had been protracted; the underlying proceedings, and the order endorsed by a penal notice breach of which led to the contempt proceedings, both dated from 2020. The appellant breached the 2020 order several times over a period of several years, leading to sentences of imprisonment of three months (running concurrently) followed consecutively by sentence of imprisonment for 28 days. The appellant’s appeal against the findings of contempt and sentence of imprisonment was unsuccessful. Written by Katherine Hampshire, barrister at Serjeants’ Inn Chambers.

Master of the Rolls speech addresses AI adoption in legal profession and digital assets jurisdiction alignment

In his speech at the Legal Geek Conference, Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos highlighted the rapid shift in attitudes towards AI within the legal profession. Sir Geoffrey Vos emphasised that AI is a powerful tool, capable of streamlining tasks such as summarising documents and conducting legal research, but cautioned that its use must be grounded in understanding, privacy protection and careful verification. He asserted that AI can assist in drafting contracts and even generating legal advice or judgments, but stressed that its role should be carefully considered, particularly in judicial decision-making, where ethical and societal implications are profound.