Schedule 1 Children Act

[hsamantha]

To cover the main events, EXP has no contact with his 4 month Son, based on his own decisions

Child Maintanence payments have been arranged through the CMS, I have also asked EXP for financial help towards the costs of equipment for our Son, Car, furniture, pram etc. I provided copies of receipts to him, he said he would take legal advice, he contacted me following this and provided me with cheaper comparables of items I had purchased, he totalled the costs and then halfed the amount to offer me £521, on the proviso that I signed to confirm that this would be the only time he would have to pay over and above Child Maintanence, I rejected this offer.

In an attempt to find another way of resolving this I made an appointment with a mediator, I attended an initial appointment and said that I would be happy to attend mediation with EXP. The Mediator got back in touch with me following EXP appointment to advise mediationwould not be going ahead, they could not give a reason however it was because either they thought mediation was not suitable or one or the other party did not want to partake. I can only assume from this that EXP did not want to go ahead.

From this I now feel that bringing a claim under Schedule 1 is not my only option, for information, EXP sold a property where he made a profit of circa 90K in December 2013 and he has a gross salary of approx 61K per year. I now have a solicitor involved who is trying to push EXP solicitor to go to mediation, has anyone else been through a claim under this section of law or knows much about it? Thanks in advance

I'm sorry I think it's wrong. He HAS contributed towards your son's upkeep if he's paying via CMS at their rates- it's 15% of his wages isn't it? That's a fair old whack of money each month if he's on 61k.

Why should he fund you a new 16k car? You chose to pay 16k you could have got one for a much lower cost. Not his fault you wanted that one.

No point arguing. You clearly see no problem with trying to get even more
money from this man, whereas I think it's morally wrong.

I think its morally wrong that he's allowed to get away with not taking any responsibility for the care of his Son.

But you said he is paying maintenance
So he is taking responsibility

No I'm referring to the 'care' he does not look after him at all.

I'd like to see if he had full care of our Son and I paid him maintenance how 'fair' he would see it

Its tough but that is the decision he has made.
You need to accept it and move on.
If you spend all your time feeling sorry for yourself and thinking ' its not fair' then it will eat you up.
Move on, for the sake of your child

I can't imagine a judge awarding you £20K just because he doesn't provide care.
Also, the maintenance he pays reflects the level of care he doesn't provide. If he did overnights, your maintenance would drop by one seventh for each night of the week he had them.

You must earn a fair whack yourself if you can afford a £16k car without the promise of your ex paying towards it so your argument about equalising the level of income seems irrelevant. Also, I think that reasoning is when the absent parent is very well off, not £61K salary.

Have you taken proper legal advice? I think you'd be onto a loser tbh.

Look, it may be morally wrong that he can walk away and leave you with 100% care of your child. I'm sorry for that, it's shit. But that is not what is up for debate, and irrelevant to the court.

Section 1 applications are unlikely to succeed unless there would be a clear disparity between the fathers lifestyle and that of the child's. On a gross income of 61k, that's not very likely - he will be better off that you probably (although you say nothing of your income or job) but it's hardly a rock and roll income.

I understand the "out for blood" motivation, you want him to hurt, to contribute financially in lieu of physically and emotionally. But I don't think the courts are going to give you that satisfaction.

Contact and maintenance are not connected. That cuts both ways. Just as parents cannot deny contact just because there is no maintenance, you don't get more maintenance just because there is no contact.

Your solicitor should advise you of your chances of success. We only have partial information here which means we are guessing. But on the information you have posted I would be surprised if the court ordered him to pay the amount you are claiming.

OP, the reason other posters are responding as they do is that your posts underline your crossness (I wouldn't say anger) at the situation. "It's not fair" is how it comes across i.e. he has a bigger car than yours, you want nice baby stuff and he "should" contribute,
The courts don't do "fair" and trying to get them to do so will lead to more disappointment and bitterness plus your time and money that tbh you'd be better spending on your DC.
Courts can't force anything beyond the law as set down in the Children's Act and the onus is on you to make a very watertight case. Schedule 1 is a very high hurdle to jump. From what you post, the car and costs at the moment don't seem strong enough.
Get car you can afford, NCT sales are full of barely used, good quality baby stuff. As you weren't married your options are severely limited.
Not a legal point of view, but it's better to let this go and hope that in the future he wants to provide for his DC above and beyond the CSA minimum.

I think its morally wrong that he's allowed to get away with not taking any responsibility for the care of his Son.
That may be, but the law is not there to put moral wrongs right. It is not there to punish people for immoral behaviour. It may punish people for behaviour that also happens to be immoral in the eyes of many, but when it comes to family law, immoral or unpleasant or hurtful behaviour is not sanctioned, unless it's actually illegal. His legal obligation is to support his child financially according to the CSA amounts, which he is doing. His moral obligation is between him and his conscience and there isn't a legal mechanism for you to enforce it.

But really you need to pursue this with your solicitor who can advise you properly. Your income and the standard of living you provide your son will absolutely be taken into account, and you'll have to prove that a big disparity exists; not just that you feel it's unfair that he hasn't and doesn't have to contribute financially or practically and should be made to. I understand why that must be a bitter pill to swallow, I really do, but it's the way things are.

Our situatino is reversed in a sense - I earn 10x what their father does. So our court order says I pay/paid 5 sets of school and university costs whoever the children live with. I earn quite a bit but I would not say "only" £60k pa is the very big earnings which would normally trigger that kind of order like the £50k of school fees I am obliged to pay. (In our case their father does not pay a penny and got a lot of money from me)

My feeling is that the lump sum he got from his property would probably be ordered to be his to keep as you son does not "need " it and it is not like your ex has £1m a year income and £10m in savings in which case a capital type orderm ight be made.
Anyway try your luck. Often people are happier to pay money direct for something - so eg if you returned to full time work and wanted your ex to pay half the cost of a nanny (when ours were 4 months I was working full time and also paying £30k a year on a nanny) he might be happier to pay that as an investment in your career and future earning potential than just handing over a capital sum. (We were always happy with £1k cars and second hand baby stuff despite very high earnings).

Boy oh boy! This thread has ruffled some feathers!
Schedule 1 applications are dealt with on the basis of need, not fairness.
No child needs a £33k or even a £16.5k car. The nursery/school comment is optimistic: the vast majority in this town walk. Those that don't could get all they could possibly need for £2-3k.
No child without special needs needs more than a few hundred pounds of equipment (though we got ours from e-bay for rather less. The 99p stroller got us as far as Zambia and Sri Lanka before a wheel fell off in London!)
There is slightly more to Schedule 1 than that but given the father's income in this case, the above will do.
Mr Justice Mostyn - probably the country's leading family finance judge said this last year:
“Time and again judges point out the madness of litigating in this way; and time and again their admonitions fall on deaf ears. At the end of the day all we can do is to express concern about such extreme folly, and if it is ignored then the parties will have to live with, and take responsibility for, the consequences of their decisions.”
It would be a pity if his Lordship's words continued to be ignored.