Jersey Unreported Judgments

Matrimonial - application by the mother for increased child maintenance.

[2012]JRC027B

Royal Court

(Family)

2 February 2012

Reasons

Advocate E. L. Burns for the Applicant.

Advocate R. E. Colley for the Respondent.

judgment

the registrar:

1.        This is an application by the applicant mother, ("mother") for increased child maintenance from the respondent father, ("the father") for their two children, B ("B") born in 2007 and C ("C") born in the 2011.  There is a parental responsibility agreement. 

2.        The children live with their mother but the father has contact with B one afternoon a week returning B at 8am on the following morning and alternate Saturdays and Sundays between 10am to 5pm. 

3.        The mother is in receipt of £213 per week Social Security.  In addition, she receives £111 per month as part of a legacy left to her by her father.  This payment is to continue, she thinks, until she is 25.  She currently receives £150 per month maintenance from the father.  She therefore has £923 per month from Social Security plus £111 legacy and £150 per month child maintenance, totalling £1,184 per month, but with her rent being paid, and the gas bills and water bills being included in the rent. 

4.        With regard to her expenditure, she does spend £69 per month on a television as her previous television broke down, and £6 per month on a Zoo pass, but she gave evidence which was not challenged about buying clothes from charity shops and she does not go out save for the odd coffee on a Wednesday with friends.  She gave evidence that she has no money left at the end of each month.  She was challenged as her bank statements show about £100 - £200 left over each month but she said she needed to set money aside from time to time for expenses such as rates and presents.  

5.        The mother is now six months pregnant by another man but she does not live with him.  She was asked whether she could work as a shop assistant on Saturdays to supplement her income but I do not consider she will work in the near future given, she says, she has no one to look after the children (her own mother works full-time) were she to work.  She has not worked since 2008.  She will not therefore be able to supplement her income by working at present. 

6.        Social Security has required her to make this application to get more money from the father.  She wants him to pay 20% of his net income to her, his net income being £1,433 per month, amounting to £286.60, an increase of £136.60 per month on his present payment.  As she receives Social Security, were he to pay this she would be £13.60 per month better off (her Social Security is reduced by 90 pence in the £1 for each £1 of maintenance received).  Can the father pay this sum, or indeed any increase over £150 per month?

7.        The father is a Customer Services Officer employed by the Royal Bank of Scotland.  He earns £1,433 per month net.  He did work as a doorman until September 2011 at weekends, but no longer does so because he wants to spend time with his partner with whom he cohabits. 

8.        His expenditure is £1,442.30.  He gave evidence that he splits bills with his partner, paying £850 into a joint account, she contributes £800 and with this they pay general living expenses.  The rent is £1,083 a month for two-bedroomed accommodation, needed as B stays with him. 

9.        He has a loan with Acorn Finance taken out on the 26th September, 2011, for £10,000 with a payment of £235 per month.  He gave evidence as to how the loan came about.  When he was with the mother he got a loan for a television with Black Horse Finance; he made all the payments.  He then got another loan with Equipment Rental for furniture and effects.  The two loans had high rates of interest, so as he worked for NatWest he went to them to consolidate the two loans.  However, he later decided to clear the loans from NatWest as he considered it would be better not to have a staff loan, and the interest rate with Acorn was better.  He therefore gave evidence that the loans are in respect of items purchased whilst he was living with the mother, which he left for her.  He was asked by the Court if he had borrowed extra money when he paid off the NatWest loan and took on the Acorn loan but denied he did so.  There was no paperwork to show the redemption amounts of the previous loans, but none was sought from him by the mother.  I am therefore accepting that the loan is a consolidation of previous loans.  The Acorn Loan will be paid off on 19th September, 2016. 

10.      The father owes his parents money, having borrowed £1,000 from them.  He gave evidence that this was incurred because when he split up with the mother he left a lot of furniture in her flat and the loan was to help him start again.  He is paying the loan back at £50 per month and it will be paid back by August 2013. 

11.      He gave evidence that his total legal bill will be more than £8,000 and could be as much as £10,000.  This is in respect of contact and parental responsibility as well as these maintenance proceedings.  He is paying £50 per month.  He is legally aided, and it has been calculated he will have to pay 25% of his total bill.  Under the terms of the legal aid scheme, it is understood he has to pay outstanding fees within 36 months of the case finishing, which will either mean borrowing more money or paying at a higher rate. 

12.      The father wears contact lenses which cost him £18 per month; he has no car (he does not have a licence to drive) and pays £20 per month for public transport and £40 per month to Jersey Telecom.  He was asked about gym fees of £29 per month.  He said he took B swimming which he can do as part of his gym membership.  The father was questioned about his expenditure, having produced both statements from his personal account and joint bank account with his partner and I accept that he does not have an excessive lifestyle.  He went on a holiday paid for by his partner; however it is noted, as set out in his affidavit, that she pays £800 per month for living expenses whilst he pays £850, a difference of £50 equating to £600 per annum.  

The Law

13.      As this is an application made under the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 ("the Law"), the Court is required to look at the matters set out in Schedule 1, Article 4(1).  I was referred to the case of FG and MBW [2011] EWHC 1729 (FAM) in which Charles J considered a Schedule 1 application.  In that case, the court did not take a purely mathematical approach to quantifying child maintenance, preferring instead to assess the case looking at all the circumstances including the standard of living during the relationship that the father provided and was likely to provide in the future. 

14.      The case of S-v-G [2003] JRC 091A was a divorce rather than a free-standing children matter.  Paragraph 13 of this judgment concerns child maintenance.  In this case Registrar Obbard said:-

"My "tariff" for child maintenance starts at about £55 - £60 per week per child in an average family dependent on an average wage earner, possibly the wife having a part-time occupation as well, making a total of £400 - £500 per week with average expenses.

I am not saying that maintenance for children should be tied rigidly to the UK formula, but it does provide a useful guide, certainly in cases which require a rate of maintenance well above the £55 to £60 per week tariff, to which I have referred.  In the lower rates, it is more practical to attribute the maintenance to a share of the family budget.  However, when the rate of maintenance approaches or exceeds £100 per week, the assessment is more difficult to achieve in a fair manner.  Reference to a table of figures makes sense, at least as a guide."

15.      I was not referred to the case of W-v-O [2004] JLR N 53 in which Registrar Obbard said:

"Family Law-financial provision-children-variation of maintenance

The UK Child Support Agency tables may be useful for comparative purposes, and the varied rate should be checked for overall fairness and common sense (Taylor-v-Taylor (née Hayter) 1987-88 JLR N 14, applied). 

It is not in the public interest to prolong costly disputes between parents concerning the variation of child maintenance payments."

16.      This is also the case for new child maintenance application as well as a variation of an existing order.  The Child Support Agency 2000 tariff is a guide used by this Court in child maintenance cases, whether for a variation of child maintenance payments as in the W-v-O case or for a new application.  The rate however must be checked for overall fairness and common sense, and bearing in mind the matters set out in the Law. 

17.      The mother requires the father to pay £286.60 per month in accordance with the CSA 2000 guidelines i.e. 20% of his net income.  The father said he cannot pay this.  He had chosen to give up his weekend work as a bouncer but I do not consider he should be required to work as a bouncer as well as hold down a full-time job.  The mother said his lifestyle was better than hers.  She has £1,184 per month, with her rent, gas and water bills paid for herself and the two children.  From his £1,433 per month the father has to pay his share of rent of £541.50 and £41 water charges so he is left with £850 per month and less the current child maintenance, £700 per month.  In addition, he has the loans.  

18.      The father says that he simply cannot afford to pay the amount required by the mother and offers to continue paying £150 per month (£75 per child).  He gave evidence that on occasions he may get a bonus but this quarter will not get a bonus and the last bonus he got was about £343.  He has a loan which I have noted has been for items from which he no longer benefits, having left them with the mother.  He has not expected her to contribute to the loan payments.  It was suggested that his current partner contribute to these, but it is not her liability and she is not required to contribute towards his maintenance payments for his children.  The mother is having another baby so she will not be in the job market and cannot supplement her income. 

19.      What then is a fair sum for him to pay?  I accept that even if the father were ordered to pay 20% of his net income, the mother would only be better off by £13 per month, but I have to consider what is fair for him without taking the matter of Social Security into account. 

20.      I do not think it excessive to have gym membership of £29 per month given that he uses it to go swimming with B and bearing in mind the mother is paying £6 per month Zoo membership as well as £69 per month for a 40 inch television.  No specific suggestions were put to the father about reducing his other expenditure, but he may perhaps be able to adjust the payment he makes on his household budget and he may in due course have a bonus.  The most I consider that he can afford to pay is child maintenance at the rate of £160 (£80 each child) per month, to be paid until the children reach the age of 16 or finish full-time secondary education, whichever is the later or further order of the Court.  However I will order that he pays an additional £50 per month in any case from the 1st September, 2013, when he has paid off the monies borrowed from his parents. 

21.      In the event that either of the children wish to proceed to tertiary education the maintenance shall be subject to a review, and there shall be a RPI increase.  

Authorities

Children (Jersey) Law 2002.

FG and MBW [2011] EWHC 1729 (FAM).

S-v-G [2003] JRC 091A.

W-v-O [2004] JLR N 53.