Representation for child in financial proceedings

In re S (a child: unmarried parents: financial provision) CA TLR 17 April

In proceedings brought under s15 of the Children Act 1989, the children should have separate representation. It was easy to see how the real crux of the case could be lost unless there was a representative of the child constantly urging the needs and interest of the child. In the present case, the judge had awarded the mother £800,000 from which to provide housing, which necessarily meant moving to a cheaper area, while the father lived in a house conservatively estimated to be worth about £3.5m. The judge had appeared to have taken the £1m figure awarded in In re P (child: financial provision) [2003] 2 FLR 865, where the father was worth more than £10m, as a benchmark from which he had to scale down proportionately to reflect the disparity of wealth between the father in the present case and the father in Re P. That was an erroneous approach. The judge should have asked whether it was necessary for the child to move area, as well as assessing the risk of harm to her welfare. Judges should not use multi-million pound financial provision cases as benchmarks, which they have to scale down proportionately in cases of other less wealthy fathers.