[2010]JRC053A
royal court
(Samedi Division)
15th March 2010
Before : |
V. J. Obbard, Registrar, sitting alone. |
|||
Between |
A |
Applicant |
|
|
And |
B
|
Respondent |
|
|
IN THE MATTER OF N
Assessment of Child Maintenance
Advocate A. J. Clarke for the Applicant.
The Respondent appeared in person.
judgment
the registrar:
1. The parties are not married and they have a child, who is now 7.
2. An application was made by the mother on 19th October, 2009, for child maintenance. A preliminary hearing was initially adjourned but returned to Court on 10th November, 2009. At that hearing, the father agreed to recommence payment of £70 per week as from Friday 13th November, 2009, by standing order. Further directions were given and the date was fixed for a hearing.
3. The mother, in her statement of means, states that she earns £162.00 per week when she is working, and receives £322.00 from Income Support. Her total payments per month amount to £2,204.98. If one totals her weekly income and converts it to a monthly figure, the result is £2,097.00, some £180 less than her outgoings. Nearly half her outgoings are spent on rent per month (£1,056) leaving £1,148.98 per month for herself and child 1 to buy everything else. Clearly when maintenance was re-instated in November 2009, it made a huge difference.
4. The father declares in his statement of means that he has a part share in one property worth £775,000 and a full share in another, worth at least £400,000. The equity in the first is £520,000 (his share £256,000). The second, he is trying to develop for sale. If successful he could achieve £1,200,000 but has present borrowings of £719,000. His rental from letting rooms (in the first property) is £1,625.00 per month. On the other hand, he declares his total outgoings (including the payment of two mortgages) to be £6,061.18 per month.
5. The father began to explain the difficulties he has with the development and his problems with continuing to pay the mortgage. He is in dispute with the trust which owns neighbouring property. There is presently no parking space for the proposed development.
6. At the time of the hearing there were some arrears of maintenance associated with the purchase of a car. The mother thought the money had been a gift. The car had been purchased six years ago. There had been a discussion in a car park when the mother had said "do whatever you like". She thought he was going to deduct £10 per week from the maintenance until the "debt" of £600 was paid.
7. His version is that she had damaged a car which she wanted to replace. When buying a new car, he had made up the difference between the sale value and the new car of £600. He had also helped her out by allowing her and child 1 to sleep in his house. The £600 had never been a gift, it was a loan. She had since sold the car and bought another.
8. On balance, bearing in mind the circumstances of the parties, it seems to me that to withdraw maintenance for a child in respect of a six year old debt is not fair to the mother or the child. The mother is, as she put it "just surviving". I am not commenting on the father's generosity, or otherwise. I just think that to stop maintenance for a child for any reason after six years is not fair to a mother, who has to have a regular income to support a child.
9. The father, even if he does not declare much present income, has, at least to date, serviced two mortgages and still hopes to make large profits from property development. I am not clear how he makes up the deficit between his income and outgoings. The explanation he gave was that he had not paid income tax for the last two years, but I do not understand how he can continue to service the 2 mortgages.
10. The mother was also claiming for a share of expenses incurred for child 1's optical expenses, uniforms, shoes and extra curricula activities (swimming - £60 per term; drama £30 per week) and child minding expenses (e.g. £217 over Easter).
11. In the normal course of events, it would be common to include in an order for child maintenance that a father should contribute to extra expenses such as these. As the mother's advocate said, they are not high. However, given these parents' record of disagreement, I would prefer to err on the generous side for a regular payment of maintenance so that weekly maintenance should be considered to include a contribution towards the extras, such as to optical, clothing and extra curricular activities. This might avoid further awkward confrontations between the parties over what contributions to extra expenses are reasonable. However, I think child minding expenses are different, in that they can be crippling if paid only by one parent. They have to be paid if the parent with care of the child has a regular job, they are easy to quantify and ought to be shared between both parents.
12. It is not possible in this case to calculate maintenance in the usual way by reference to the UK Child Support Agency tables. The father does not appear to have a regular income except from rental from lodgers, which is not enough on its own to account for his lifestyle or borrowings. It seems to me that if a man is capable of borrowing sums in excess of £700,000 for property development, he has to factor in a reasonable regular payment of maintenance for his child. It is not right for him to prioritise his personal gain over and above the payment of reasonable maintenance for his child. If, in future, the property speculation pays off, child maintenance will have to be recalculated. In the meantime the sum of £100 per week is a reasonable level of maintenance commensurate with his lifestyle and should be considered sufficient at this stage to include a contribution to some of the mother's extra expenses for the child.
No Authorities