The court considered the amount of an allowance to be provided to a parent which would, on divorce, take care of a child of the family in a moderate to high income case.
Held: The carer would not themselves be entitled to an allowance personally, but only in his or her capacity as carer. The exercise was one of discretion, involving a broad commonsense approach. It can be easier to decide first what was to happen to any capital sum with a view to providing a home. A balance had then to be found between competing principles. The carer was not herself entitled to an allowance but would inevitably make sacrifices. The carer should be allowed a budget which reflected her position and that of the father, both social and financial.
Judges:
Thorpe, May LJJ, Bodey J
Citations:
Times 24-Jul-2003, Gazette 04-Sep-2003, [2003] 2 FLR 865
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – In Re S (a Child: Unmarried Parents: financial provision) CA 1-Mar-2006
(Date) The mother appealed against an order of andpound;800,000 to provide her with a home in which to bring up the child of the wealthy ummarried couple.
Held: The judge had erred in scaling down pro rata an award made in another large money . .
Cited – Morgan v Hill CA 28-Nov-2006
The father appealed an award of periodical payments to a former partner. She had a child by an earlier relationship. The father was immensely rich and during the relationship made financial provision for the child by the earlier relationship also. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Child Support, Family
Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.185196