Applications under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989

Jurisdiction and scope

Maintenance provisions under section 15 and Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) may be used where a case falls outside the jurisdiction of statutory maintenance via the Child Maintenance Service. A parent, step-parent, guardian or person named in a child arrangements order as a person with whom the child is to live may apply for the range of orders under ChA 1989, Sch 1.

See Practice Note: Maintenance provision for children under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989.

A lump sum order may be made under ChA 1989, Sch 1 for past expenditure, for example the reimbursement of expenses connected with the birth and for future expenditure, for example for a family car or a school fees fund. A transfer or settlement of property order can be made once to provide a home for a child.

See Practice Note Capital provision under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989.

The following Precedent letter may be sent by practitioners to their clients: Financial arrangements for children—client guide.

Children

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Family News

Master of the Rolls speech addresses AI adoption in legal profession and digital assets jurisdiction alignment

In his speech at the Legal Geek Conference, Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos highlighted the rapid shift in attitudes towards AI within the legal profession. Sir Geoffrey Vos emphasised that AI is a powerful tool, capable of streamlining tasks such as summarising documents and conducting legal research, but cautioned that its use must be grounded in understanding, privacy protection and careful verification. He asserted that AI can assist in drafting contracts and even generating legal advice or judgments, but stressed that its role should be carefully considered, particularly in judicial decision-making, where ethical and societal implications are profound.

Family weekly highlights—16 October 2025

This week's edition of the Family weekly highlights includes details of the Family Justice Council’s 18th annual debate and the update to the Family Public Law digital portal’s payment by account number feature. Analyses of the role of a qualified legal representative and the Court of Protection’s approach to be taken towards provision of position statements and skeleton arguments to public observers in proceedings covered by transparency orders are included, together with details of the House of Lords recommendations for the urgent overhaul of the Child Maintenance Service. Recent judgments on disclosing confidential information from children proceedings to regulatory bodies and applications for summary return orders under the inherent jurisdiction are also considered.

QLR is an advocate for the court, not the parties (K v P (Criminal Solicitor as Court-Appointed QLR))

Family analysis: The court held that the qualified legal representative (QLR) who was also an alleged abuser’s criminal solicitor could not continue as the court-appointed QLR in the Family Court. There was no suggestion of wrong-doing by the QLR and the President of the Family Division explicitly confirmed as such, but terminated the solicitor’s appointment as the QLR in any event. Adam Bloodworth, solicitor at Duncan Lewis solicitors, considers the issues.

Domestic Abuse Commissioner reviews how the family courts deal with domestic abuse

On 14 October 2025, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner published findings from a study conducted under the Family Court review and reporting mechanism (FCRRM), which examined practices at three Family Court sites in England and Wales throughout 2024. The study focused on how domestic abuse is identified and addressed in private law child arrangement proceedings. Domestic abuse was identified in 87% of case files and 73% of observed hearings. The report found that court proceedings can have a negative impact on survivors and children, including re-traumatisation, limited opportunities for children’s views to be considered and orders perceived as unsafe or unsustainable. While some good practice was observed, such as trauma-informed approaches and efforts to prioritise safety, these were not applied consistently. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner made several recommendations in relation to the next steps for the FCRRM, including that the Ministry of Justice should commit resources and funding to a second phase of the FCRRM to include Pathfinder court sites and Child Arrangements Programme courts, as well as financial remedy cases.