Re N (A Child) (Financial Provision: Contact Travel Costs) [2026] EWFC 18 (B)

Judgment date: 23 January 2026

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2026/18

DDJ Vickers.

Summary

Mother’s (‘M’) application for financial support for the benefit of the child pursuant to Schedule 1 Children Act 1989. She sought order for periodical payments including backdated payments. The Father (‘F’) also sought that M reimburse him for various child-related expenses he had incurred both pre- and post-separation and sought to offset that amount against M’s claim.

Background

The parties are both 40 years old. M lives in the UK and is employed as a consultant providing IT services for one client through a limited company with a net annual salary of £56,505. F is an American citizen, but lives in the Caribbean. He is employed by an American market research company with a net annual salary of £138,816 plus discretionary bonus.

The parties began a relationship in 2023 and the child, N, was born in 2024. A few months later, the parties separated.

Lengthy and contentious Children Act 1989 proceedings ensued, with final order of HHJ Gillespie on 12 June 2025 setting out that N should live with M and spend time with F on an increasing basis, building to April 2026, following which she will spend time with F ‘on no less than six separate periods of time per annum, each for a consecutive fourteen-night period at a frequency of every two months’. F was permitted to take N out of the jurisdiction twice per year to travel to the Caribbean or the USA for a holiday with the remainder of his contact to take place in the UK. The order required F to meet N’s travel costs for contact.

M made her application under Schedule 1 Children Act in February 2025. A first appointment took place on 17 September 2025 and an FDR hearing on 8 December 2025 that did not settle. Both parties were litigants in person.

Issues

1. What was the correct rate for periodical payments?
2. For how long should the periodical payments be paid?
3. Should the periodical payments be reviewable and how?
4. Should F make any additional contribution to childcare and other costs?
5. Should there be an order for F to pay a lump sum to reimburse M for previous nursery fees and unpaid maintenance?
6. Should there be an order for M to pay F a lump sum?
7. Should there be an order for F to maintain an insurance policy for N’s benefit?

Parties’ positions

Mother sought

1. Monthly periodical payments of £1100 linked to UK CPI;
2. F to pay 70% of childcare costs (currently nursery but in the future wrap-around school care, and holiday clubs);
3. F to pay 70% towards other ‘reasonable agreed child-related costs’;
4. Lump sum for costs incurred (unpaid maintenance at a retrospective rate of £1100 pcm deducting voluntary maintenance already paid) of £11,740 and 70% of previous nursery fees of £6093.50);
5. F to contribute 70% towards an annual travel insurance policy;
6. F to maintain a life insurance policy, naming M as a trustee, for the benefit of N.

Father proposed

1. F to pay periodical payments at £478 in 2026, £556 in 2027, £408 for 2028 and £162 thereafter, based on the James v Seymour model, reducing his income by his grossed up travel costs to see N and ‘extras’. He then sought an offset from M to pay half his travel costs and half the nursery costs;
2. Periodical payments to be linked to an average of the CPI in UK and USA;
3. Periodical payments to cease when N completes A-Levels;
4. Financial review every three years, with a recalculation based on material changes;
5. Travel medical insurance policy for N’s benefit;
6. F to pay 70% of costs attributed to N attending university in the future;
7. M to repay F half the travel costs he had incurred thus far to see N in accordance with the Child Arrangements Order, calculated at £19,158 and a pre-separation debt of £10,999;
8. F calculated the maintenance he would have paid pursuant to his own periodical payment calculations, offset against what he actually paid voluntarily, calculating M owed him £183 in ‘back payments’. He then offset that against an alleged debt of £29,257 to assert M owes him £29,074, which he said she should pay as a lump sum to him or N to contribute to their future travel costs.

Decision

The judge noted there was a significant disparity between the income of M and F, and observed that were F to live in the UK and earn just slightly less, it would bring him under the jurisdiction of the CMS, and his contribution would be £1088 pcm.

The court considered the decision of Mostyn J in James v Seymour [2023] EWHC 844 (Fam) and in particular the observations at [43] in relation to a formula to be applied as a starting point for the assessment of periodical payments in cases where the proposed payer’s gross earned income falls between £156,001 and £650,000 and where there are fewer than four children. The formula to be applied to calculate the Child Support Starting Point (‘CSSP’) is set out in the appendix to Mostyn J’s judgment.

In respect of F’s position that M should pay a lump sum in excess of £29,000 to him, the court held it was not a justifiable position based on the evidence, but in any event, there is no jurisdiction under Schedule 1 for a lump sum to be ordered payable to the respondent. F’s position on excluding his travel costs to reduce his income when undertaking the James v Seymour calculation was rejected, and there was found to be no justification for M to contribute towards his costs of travelling and spending time with N.

The court ordered monthly periodical payments of £700 to M to cover N’s nursery, housing and living costs. The reduction from the total annual liability under the CSSP from £13,100 to £8400 was fair to represent a portion of F’s travel costs and the insurance policy he maintained for N’s benefit. Those payments were ordered to continue beyond N’s 18th birthday until the following September to allow N to conclude A-Levels (or equivalent) and were to be reviewed annually based on UK CPI (on the basis that the UK is where N’s costs are incurred). F was ordered to provide M with the equivalent of his P60 within 14 days of him receiving it each year.

In respect of M seeking further payments to represent a proportion of nursery and future childcare costs, as well as for further agreed necessary expenditure, the court held there is no power under Schedule 1 to allow for such order, but in any event the global maintenance figure had already factored those costs in. M’s request for a lump sum to cover backdated ‘arrears’ of maintenance and nursery fees was held to be unjustified based on N’s needs.

This judgment has not been certified as citable pursuant to the Practice Note (Citation of Cases: Restriction and Rules) [2001] 1 WLR 1001.