The parties had sought a child maintenance order form the court, but the husband resiled from his agreement.
Held: Where the court was unexpectedly blocked in this way, it had a power to make an order for payment by way of a lump sum of the difference to the wife for the benefit of the children. The court could not make a periodical payments order because no Segal order was available, nor was there any jurisdiction under the Act, since there was neither a subsisting order nor written agreement for variation. This was not an attempt to remedy perceived deficiencies in the Act, and the court had to look to its obligation to consider the children’s welfare. The provisions may be used for maintenance purposes if the child support machinery has not been invoked. Parents can, in effect, avoid the intervention of the Child Support Agency by agreeing a nominal sum in periodical payments at the outset and then returning to court for it to be varied.
References: Times 16-Aug-2001,  2 FLR 799
Judges: Wilson J
Statutes: Child Support Act 1991, Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 23(1)(f) 25(1)
This case cites:
- Cited – Segal 1993
( Fam Law 633)
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Kehoe, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 14-Jul-2005
The applicant contended that the 1991 Act infringed her human rights in denying her access to court to obtain maintenance for her children.
Held: The applicant had no substantive right to take part in the enforcement process in domestic law . .
( AC 42, ,  UKHL 48, , Times 15-Jul-05,  3 WLR 252)
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.159485