HHJ Watkins. A substantive application by the father for a child maintenance order under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 (‘Schedule 1’); [12]. Within the application, the main issue concerned the most suitable jurisdiction for child maintenance dispute resolution. There were two jurisdictions involved in the forum conveniens dispute namely England and Wales and California. The parties were married in New York and orders were made in respect of their finances in New York (‘the New York Order’). The New York Order provided for the father to pay child support in the sum of $4,812.50 pcm (£3,812.33). Since the New York Order was made the mother and children had moved to the UK where they were habitually resident. Due to the father living in California, the CMS had no jurisdiction. The father effectively sought to vary the amount of child maintenance he would pay to £1,800 pcm to seek parity in light of the children’s habitual residence; [4].

The mother initiated proceedings in California to register the New York Order, on the basis that it was the appropriate forum due to ongoing enforcement proceedings there. She emphasised the importance of having enforcement and variation proceedings in the same jurisdiction to ensure immediate enforceability and to protect her financial interests given the father’s history of non-payment. She further argued that proceedings in England would be more complex and costly due to the need for multiple processes across jurisdictions, whereas California proceedings could handle everything in a single court. The mother raised a legal objection regarding the father’s ability to apply under Schedule 1, arguing that the statute does not allow an applicant to seek an order against themselves. Finally, she highlighted her financial vulnerability and reliance on child maintenance, arguing that fragmented litigation would be unfair and burdensome.

The father argued that England and Wales was the appropriate jurisdiction due to the children’s habitual residence and the court’s previous involvement in related matters. The father also contended that proceedings in California would be complex, prolonged, and costly, contrary to the mother’s assertions, and that England and Wales would provide a more straightforward and cost-effective process. In terms of the legal objection raised by the mother, he suggested that any technical drafting issue with Schedule 1 could be resolved by treating the child as the recipient or designating the mother as the applicant for procedural purposes. The father stated that he would cooperate with the enforcement of any order made in this jurisdiction and argued that registration of an English order in California would be simple and inexpensive. He also highlighted that both parties initially seemed to accept England and Wales as the appropriate jurisdiction, based on earlier cooperative discussions.

The court decided that the appropriate forum for resolving the child maintenance dispute was California. The reasons were as follows. First, the father resided in California and his income was generated there, making it the most suitable jurisdiction to handle any complexities related to his income and taxation. Second, there were already enforcement proceedings underway in California, which simplifies matters by consolidating all related legal actions in one jurisdiction. Third, litigating in California avoided the complexity of having proceedings in both England and Wales and California. It ensured that any order made can be directly enforced without the need for additional registration processes. Fourth, the court acknowledged the statutory limitations of the Children Act 1989 in England, which does not easily permit a parent to apply for an order against themselves under Schedule 1. Finally, given the circumstances, California was deemed the most convenient and efficient forum to resolve the dispute, including any enforcement issues.