Family - application to vary an order for periodical payments

[2021]JRC105

Royal Court

(Family)

12 February 2021

Before     :

Samantha McFadzean, Registrar, Family Division

 

The Applicant representing himself.

Advocate C. R. G. Davies for the Respondent.

REASONS

the REGISTRAR:

1.        I am asked to determine an application to vary an order for periodical payments payable to a mother for the benefit of HH.  F (the "Father") represents himself.  This is his application.  He told the Court that he could not afford legal representation.

2.        G (the "Mother") resists the application.  She was represented at the hearing by Counsel.  I am grateful for Advocate Davies' assistance in preparing the bundle for the final hearing.

3.        HH’s parents were married in 2005, a year or so before the child was born but, sadly, their marriage came to an end in 2010.  They entered into a separation agreement in 2012 which was approved and set out in an Act of Court made by a former Registrar of the Family Division in March 2017.

4.        That agreement, as recorded by the Act of Court provided, amongst other things, that HH would share HH’s time between the parents and that the Father would make periodical payments to HH’s mother as follows: -

(i)        £415 per month to include his contribution towards HH’s school uniform and any extracurricular activities.  This payment was to increase in line with any annual increase in the Jersey retail prices index ("RPI"); and

(ii)       one half of HH’s private school fees; and

(iii)      one half of any extraordinary medical or dental expenses incurred for HH; and

(iv)      one half of the cost of her agreed school trips.

5.        The Father also agreed that he would pay one half of the premia payable in respect of a life insurance policy for the benefit of HH.

6.        Income tax allowances were to be shared 55% to the Mother, the balance to the Father.

7.        Following the breakdown of the marriage, the Father started a new relationship with J, with whom he has a child, KK.  KK is educated at School A.  The Father told the court that KK's school fees were now being paid by J’s family because of a change in his circumstances.  Although the Father did not specify in clear terms what change had led to his application to vary maintenance, it appears that the change is J’s decision not to return to full time employment.

HH's relationship with the Father

8.        At the same time as the Father applied for a reduction in periodical payments, he brought an application to the Court to alter the living  arrangements for HH, the pattern of which had, until recently, reflected the shared residence order which had been agreed at the time of the breakdown of the Mother and Father's marriage.

9.        The Father wanted to reduce the time that HH spent in his home to one week per calendar month.  That application has not been determined by this Court on the advice of the JFCAS officer.  The Court explained as much to the Father at the same time as it discharged the shared residence order and made, in its stead, a residence order in favour of the Mother which reflected the status quo.

10.      The Court remains, of course, prepared to determine this application if the Father considers it absolutely necessary but expressed concern that HH, who has been undergoing counselling in an effort to manage HH’s feelings about the breakdown in her relationship with the Father and his new family, would be irreparably harmed by a contested hearing between the parents about HH which sought, in effect, to reduce the time that the father spent with HH.  HH would likely perceive this as a further rejection by him so, to enable them to have space to repair their relationship, the Curt made an order that HH should have such contact, including overnight contact, with her Father as HH wishes and as can be agreed between her and her Father.  At the moment, as I understand it, HH is not seeing the father.

11.      It is against this difficult change in circumstances that the Court considers this application by the Father to reduce the level of periodical payments which he now pays towards HH’s upkeep and education.

The Father's case

12.      The Father told the court that he has nothing to give HH.  Nonetheless, and with economies, he offers to pay the total sum of £400 per calendar month to the Mother towards HH’s upkeep.  That payment must, he says, include any contribution to school fees.

13.      While the Father did not feel able to make a specific contribution towards HH’s school fees, he accepted that HH’s best interests would be served by her remaining at the school which the child has attended throughout her education, particularly as HH is now pursuing GCSE courses.  He accepted that there should be a review of maintenance at the end of secondary school and that, subject to his financial position at that time, he could consider contributing to tertiary education costs.

14.      The Father maintains in his position statement that there are arrears of school fees of about £847 due and payable to the Mother and £1,338 for unpaid periodical payments but did not agree with the quantum of the Mother's claim for arrears.  He said that if the Court accepted his case and ordered maintenance to be paid going forward at a rate of £400 per month, he would need, ideally, three years to discharge those arrears.  The Court notes that in his position statement, he asked for eighteen months.

The Mother's position

15.      The Mother asks the court to order the Father to pay periodical payments for HH in the sum of £600 per month, to be adjusted annually in accordance with the change in the Jersey RPI, together with 50% of HH’s  school fees, payment of arrears of unpaid school fees and child periodical payments which, she said, came to £3,068. The Mother accepted that the Father would need to repay outstanding arrears by instalments.

16.      During the day's hearing, and to limit the dispute, the Mother agreed the Father's figures for arrears put forward in evidence in the sum of £2,566.29.

17.      I therefore find that arrears of £2,566.29 are to be paid by the Father to the Mother.  No application to remit those arrears was made.

The law

18.      Any claim for child periodical payments, whether made under Schedule 1 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 ("Schedule 1") or articles 25 or 33 of the Matrimonial Causes (Jersey) Law 1949 (the "Law"), starts and finishes with a child's needs and their parents' respective abilities to contribute to those costs of meeting those needs.  The court's analysis takes into account all of the particular circumstances of the child and each of their parents.

19.      In L v D and R [2004] JLR 334, following an application to vary child periodical payments ordered by the court in matrimonial proceedings under the Law, Birt, Deputy Bailiff (as he then was) held that on an application for variation of child maintenance payments the previously agreed sum "would be taken as the starting point and varied in light of the change".  That position is consistent with the law as set out in paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 1 namely that:-

"In exercising its powers under paragraph 1 or 2 to vary or discharge an order for the making or securing of periodical payments the court shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case, including any change in any of the matters to which the court was required to have regard when making the order."

20.      Birt, Deputy Bailiff's decision is echoed in the position adopted a number of years later by Clyde-Smith, Commissioner in U v V (Family) [2018] JRC 160 on hearing an application to vary under Schedule 1, in which the court held that:-

"In an application for a variation of maintenance, the Court does not approach the issue de novo. The starting point must be the agreement reached between the parties…and made into the Consent Order, so that the Court's role is to determine what variation, if any, would be fair and reasonable, taking into account the change of circumstances".

21.      As this application is one for variation under the Law of an extant order, as agreed by the parties and approved by the court, Advocate Davies properly referred the court to the decision of the learned Commissioner Clyde-Smith in Q v R [2018] JRC 041, who reminded himself that any application made under Article 33 of the Law requires the court to have regard

"to all the circumstances of the case, including any increase or decrease in the means of either of the parties to the marriage".

22.      As to the question of whether the approach adopted by the court should be any different whether a claim for variation is made under the Law or under Schedule 1, in A v B [2020] JRC 015, the court explained on an application for variation of child periodical payments under the Law:-

“82.      I have therefore not heard argument from Counsel about the matters to which I should apply my mind when determining the application so, without seeking to prejudice any argument which might be heard in a future matter, I have concluded that:-

(i)        because the MCJL does not contain the equivalent of s.25(1) inviting the court to treat the welfare of the child as the first consideration; and

(ii)       because s.25 criteria invite the court to consider the needs of the family as a whole while, in this case, the court is concerned with the needs of the child,

I will determine this variation application as though it is as an application under Schedule 1 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002.

83.      It seems to me that the first consideration should be to the interests and welfare of the child and that any analysis of other matters enumerated in s.25 have no bearing on this case , save as they are mirrored in Article 4(1) of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002.

84.      It might be thought that by mentioning this discrepancy, the court is raising a distinction without a difference but insofar as the court's powers are fettered under Article 6 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 on an application to vary child maintenance to restrict any variation to the date of the application, no such restriction applies under Article 33 of the Law."

The Father's financial position

23.      In the Father's form C4, he set out his financial position.  He has lost two jobs in as many years but, fortunately, taking into account periods of garden leave, he has managed to retain an income or equivalent payment in lieu of notice throughout that period.

24.      He was made redundant from his previous employment in the spring of 2020, I assume, because of the downturn in the market caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.  Fortunately, he swiftly found new employment at a slightly enhanced salary.  He works for an international law firm, based in Jersey, in a support role.  His net monthly income is £5,121 per month before any bonus.  His income is comparable with the salary he was earning in March 2017 when the Act of Court was made.

25.      So, what has changed?

26.      He shares his home with KK and J whom, he told the court, is currently undertaking part-time temporary work to cover debts incurred during lockdown.  The Father told the court that J was made redundant in late 2019 from her public service role.  He told the Court that he thought her salary at the time of redundancy was about £70,000 per annum.  He was unable to tell the court what, if anything, J had received by way of redundancy payment.  It was as a result of her redundancy that her family agreed to contribute towards KK’s private school fees.

27.      The property in which the Father and his family live is rented in his name only because at the time they moved into the property, J was renting or owned a previous property in her name and her housing qualifications prevented her from occupying a second property. The Father and J have been sharing this house with KK for about five years.  This means that the Father's housing needs have not changed since the 2017 order.  Rent is a significant proportion of his monthly income in the sum of £2,342 per month.  In his form C4 he deposed to total financial obligations on a monthly basis of £5,333 including maintenance for HH offered at £400 per month.

28.      One of the obstacles faced by the Court in determining the Father's financial position with any degree of accuracy was the complete absence of evidence, let alone supporting documentary evidence, about J’s financial position. As the Father's long-standing cohabitee and mother of HH’s half-sibling, J’s financial position is relevant to this application insofar as her income or capital position may relieve the Father of some of his financial obligations.

29.      The Father and his partner do not have a joint bank account.  He told the court that he does not know how much his partner earns from her part time employment.

30.      He told the Court that his partner worked full time until KK was born in December 2014.  He told the Court that she had decided to give up work in December 2019 and that this was "an ethical choice" made to meet the needs of his family.  As indicated above, this appears to be the change on which the Father's case is predicated.

31.      He told the Court that all household costs fell to be paid by him as J’s current income was used to meet liabilities incurred during lockdown.  He described those liabilities as being the costs of purchase of a new bed for them and KK, which he put at a total cost of about £1,000, and the costs of household shopping.  She had also purchased a new freezer and paid for some damp protection.  The Father told the Court that until quite recently he was paying J £1,100 per month by way contribution towards the costs of caring for and educating KK.  He told the Court that he has now reduced that contribution to £400 per month.  He described himself as the sole earner of the family.

32.      He confirmed in cross-examination that his gross salary in his new employment is £95,000 per annum and that he has not received a bonus yet as he has been employed by this law firm only since May 2020.  He expects that he may be paid a bonus in February 2022.  He passed his probation in late 2020 and while he may receive an increase in his basic salary in his February pay packet, he does not know yet whether he will receive one.  From the Father's gross income, he pays approximately £225 per month for private healthcare for KK, HH and J.  He has also bought additional holiday from his most recent former employer which cost him about £177 per month.

33.      He will also make a pension contribution of £396 per month into his employer's pension scheme which will be matched by his employer.  It was suggested on behalf of the Mother that these deductions for extra holiday, healthcare and pension payments which are optional could be reduced to better enable the Father to meet the cost of his financial obligation to contribute to the cost of bringing up HH.

34.      The Father was also asked about the monthly payment of £180 for telephone charges.  He confirmed that this included the cost of J’s phone bill and that as a significant debit balance had accrued on the account, he was having to pay an additional sum to discharge those arrears.  He told the court that this expense has now reduced to £120 per month.

35.      His schedule of outgoings showed a loan of £300 per month which he told the Court was for the purchase of his motor vehicle.  Although the finance agreement comes to an end this month, he told the court that as he could not afford to make the balloon payment now payable, he would have to refinance that liability so that he could keep the car.

36.      He told the Court that he paid about £500 a month for food for the family.  This seems reasonable.  He said that he shopped for everyone and met all the household costs.  The Court noted, however, that this evidence contradicted the evidence he had given previously that J had been incurring debts during lockdown for, inter alia, grocery shopping.

37.      Explaining why, in spite of the fact that he was the sole earner and solely responsible for all the household outgoings, he still paid money to J every month, he told the Court that these payments were made for KK’s activities which included football coaching, music lessons, swimming lessons and costs of speech therapy.  He was not able to explain to the Court why speech therapy costs were not met by the medical insurance for which he pays £225 per month.  I struggle to understand why the Father, who already meets all of the outgoings for the home, should, in addition, pay J for the costs of KK’s education and activities in circumstances where she works herself and apparently, makes no contribution to household outgoings from her income.  The Court questions what she does with her income as it is not realistic to suggest that it is set aside to meet the lockdown liabilities as identified by the Father.

38.      The Father told the court that when he had been made redundant from a previous role in July 2019, he had received payment in lieu of notice equivalent to 3 months' salary and an ex gratia compensation payment of £10,000.  His severance payment was therefore about £27,000 in total.  He told the court that he had given this money to J because he did not feel that he was very good with money.  When challenged about why he had stopped paying maintenance for HH during that period, he told the Court that it had been very stressful, he had lost his job and had no income and that he felt insecure about his future and therefore paid no maintenance.  He was taken to entries on his bank statements showing payments to him from J of about £8,300 during this period.  He told the Court that these were payments that she had made to assist him in discharging his responsibilities from his own redundancy payment, then held by his partner. When asked about the balance of the sum, he said he thought that it had been spent gradually but that he had no evidence that it had now all been used as the account was in J’s name.

39.      At the time that he was made redundant from his previous role, J was still working but he told the Court he could not say whether she was making any contribution to household outgoings.

40.      As to the expense on his C4 from his monthly income of £225 per month for a "rainy day fund", he told the court that he pays this sum into an account in J’s name as, he told the court, she had an unused bank account.  The balance in this account, for which no documentary evidence was adduced, is used to meet expenses which he is unable to meet from his income.  He thought that there might be about £400 in the account.

The Mother's financial position

41.      The Mother works as a director in investments for an international bank based on the island.  Her net income as shown on her form C4 is £4,729 per month.  This income is net of a contribution to her pension in the sum of £418 per month, and the purchase of shares in her employer's share purchase scheme which cost her about £209 per month.  She told the Court that she was going to terminate the dental plan (shown on her wage slip) which she has signed up with her employer at a cost of £11.70 per month as she felt that she had seen no benefit from it.

42.      The Mother received a bonus in December 2019 of £25,000 gross.  She received a bonus of £23,000 in December 2020 and told the court that she was surprised to have received this given the adverse effect of COVID–19 pandemic on the finance industry.

43.      The Mother put her monthly outgoings on her form C4, dated September 2020, at £6,735 per month for herself and £1,326 per month for HH, including 50% of the school fees.  Clearly these expenses are unsustainable from the Mother's net income.

44.      The Mother told the Court that since her C4 was filed, the significant credit card and loan liabilities, which appeared on that document, had now been paid off.  The Mother had managed to discharge these liabilities by selling her car for £7,000, using her 2020 bonus and by liquidating some of the shares in her employer's share scheme.  She has also taken an equity release scheme against her home enabling her to clear her debts.  She told the Court that it was as a result of completing the paperwork for these proceedings that she realised she needed to better manage her finances.  Although she no longer has any debts (other than as secured on her home), she says she is about £400 or £500 short every month because of the arrears of periodical payments and school fees unpaid by the Father.  She told the Court that if the Father only paid £400 towards the costs of caring for HH she would need to find a second job.

45.      Under cross-examination, the Mother accepted that she has had to reduce the spending set out in her C4 in which she had, for example, set out a monthly expense of £1,634 for travel for her and HH.  She accepted that she could not spend in the same way as she had previously done and that, for example, the clothing costs for herself and her daughter had been reduced although she said that clothes for HH still cost her about £100 per month as she is growing rapidly.

46.      The Mother was not cross examined in any detail about her outgoings, but because of economies made by discharging her debts, and getting rid of her motor vehicle and the attendant insurance, servicing and parking costs, I estimate that the Mother's non – discretionary outgoings (i.e. those costs which must be incurred to keep a roof over her and HH’s head and to ensure that they have heating, light, water, and that the Mother is clothed and can have her basic day to day needs met) reduce to about £3,100 per month.  This estimate does not include the costs of travel, eating out, entertainment, hairdressing, beauty, presents, savings, or life insurance, which total a further £717 per month.

Mother's capital position/resources

47.      The Mother deposed to an investment of £6,000 in a savings account, which is in her name and which also holds monies contributed by two close friends of hers.  She told the court that her role in investments equips her to make knowledgeable decisions about investments from which she and her friends may be able to profit in due course.  She is not, she said, trading on their account.  She owns her home which has recently been re-mortgaged to pay her debts.

48.      As the parties' respective capital positions were the subject of the earlier agreement in 2017 reached to resolve the ancillary relief claims, and the parties' capital claims were dismissed, I disregard the Mother's capital position in assessing the application for variation.

HH’s needs

49.      HH is at School B and has been there since Reception.  The Mother explained that HH is dyslexic and dyspraxic and that it is suspected that HH may also suffer from dyscalculia.  As set out above, HH is sensitive and currently struggling with the relatively recent changes which have come about in HH’s life because of the loss of the relationship with the father and the half-sibling.

50.      To address HH’s educational additional needs, the Mother has been investing about £390 per month in extra tuition, now reduced to £325 per month.  The tuition in English and History have proved successful and HH found the support very useful, resulting in improved academic performances.  The Mother's principal focus is getting HH in a good place to get a bare pass in her GCSE maths as this is a requirement for a place on an A level course in Year 12.  HH has expressed an interest in training as a midwife after her formal education ends.

51.      The monthly cost of equipping HH with all that she needs, as set out in C4 and adjusted in line with evidence given by the Mother at the hearing, are as follows: -

School fees	590.50
School trips/activities	16.67
Uniform, shoes, and equipment	22.00
Clothing and shoes	100.00
Entertainment	72.00
Presents for others	29.17
Drum lessons	98.00
Yoga	40.00
Extra tuition	325.00
Toiletries	14.93
Hairdressing/beauty	22.50
Pocket money	43.33
Medical/dental/optical	51.67
Electronics e.g. replacement phone etc.	35.17
TOTAL	1,460.94

52.      These expenses do not take into account the additional costs which the Mother incurs in maintaining a roof over HH’s head and keeping her housed, warm and fed.  Nor do these expenses cover the costs of holiday travel which the Mother had put at £1,634 per month for herself and HH, based on the previous year's trips.  Needless to say, over 2020 and 2021, travel opportunities have been significantly reduced for all but the very fortunate and the Mother accepted that, going forward, and assuming the lifting of travel restrictions, she would expect to spend no more than £250 per month, principally on trips to the Mother's home country, Ireland. That figure is accounted for in paragraph 46 supra.

53.      The Father cross examined the Mother about the need for HH’s extra tuition.  He said that he had gleaned the impression from her school that she was doing well.  He did not appear to accept that she required additional tuition.  He wanted HH to stay in School B but did not feel able to contribute to the cost of her staying there.

Discussion

54.      On an application for variation of a child periodical payments order, whether made under the Law or Schedule 1, the starting point for the court's assessment should be the parties' original agreement as approved by the court, or the court's assessment following a judicial determination.

55.      In its deliberations as to whether a variation of an extant order for periodical payments is necessary or appropriate, the court should first consider the child's needs as they present at the time of the application.  While neither the Law nor Schedule 1 require an analysis of the child's welfare, meeting a child's needs invariably requires a consideration of the child's welfare as set out in A v B.

56.      The court must then determine what, if any, variation may be necessary or appropriate taking into account all the circumstances of the case but, in particular, any change in any of the matters to which the court had regard at the time of the agreement (namely the matters set out under paragraph 4(4) of Schedule 1) which have come about since the order was first made or subsequently varied.  It is inappropriate to conduct an analysis de novo, save insofar as the welfare of the child demands this.

57.      Provided always that the court makes its adjudication with full respect for the legislation, no adverse impact to the welfare of a child should result because of the  choice of law under which the parent or child pursues an application for variation i.e. when it comes to determining periodical payments for a child whether the parents have been married or unmarried, there should be no difference in the resulting assessment undertaken by the court.

58.      Although the circumstances giving rise to an application for variation are often changes in the financial position of one or other of the parents, they are, by no means, always so.  In considering this application, the court is acutely aware that a child's "needs" are restricted by paragraph 4(4)(c) of Schedule 1 to "financial needs".  Set against the background of a child's welfare, there may be cross-over into how the provision of financial assistance, for example, in relation to education, may adversely affect a child's emotional well-being (i.e. needs other than financial needs) which does not sit squarely within paragraphs 4(4)(e) and (f) of Schedule 1.  This is one such case.

59.      The court is often asked to determine disputes between parents as to whether the costs should be incurred of attendance at one of the island's fee-paying schools.  There is no dispute between the parents that HH should stay at School B, but there is a dispute as to whom should be ordered to pay for that education.

60.      The court finds that, as one of the circumstances of this case, HH’s wellbeing requires that HH suffer as little disruption as possible to HH’s education.  HH has had a difficult year or two navigating the breakdown of the relationship with the Father, a relationship which HH and he must strive to repair before time causes an irreparable rift.  The Court finds that to remove HH from school now, in the first year of GCSE courses would be emotionally and academically destructive.  Money must be found to meet these school fees.  HH’s welfare demands no less and the Mother cannot be expected to take a second job (when she already works full time) to shoulder these costs alone.

61.      I take into account as one of the changed circumstances of the case that HH now lives solely with the Mother who therefore bears the brunt of the costs of housing and caring for this young lady.  In the premises, the Mother's case on the Father's application to vary, which is that the level of periodical payments should increase rather than decrease is, prima facie, well founded.  However, whether such an increase is affordable is another matter.

62.      School fees form 40% of the budget for HH and with the costs of extra tuition, at £325 per month, her education cost of £915 per month is a comparatively significant financial burden to be discharged.

63.      In a case in which there are limited resources to meet a child's needs, the court must scrutinise the budget for the expenses incurred to meet a child's day to day needs and, if necessary, shave that budget where it appears extravagant or unnecessary.  None of the items claimed by the Mother for HH are excessive but there is a question over whether they are affordable.  The court reminds itself that a child should, wherever and whenever possible, be afforded a lifestyle and activities consistent or comparable with the opportunities offered/ life enjoyed before their parents' relationship broke down or, if applicable, the life enjoyed by parents or siblings following the parents' separation.

64.      I find that the costs of educating, caring for, entertaining and clothing HH are in line with the Mother's budget.  I consider the Mother was sensible to consolidate her various unaffordable debts and that her outgoings as outlined above are reasonable.  With the benefit of the bonus which she is accustomed to receiving, although I accept that this is not guaranteed, she should, going forward be able to manage the demands on her income.

65.      The Father's financial position is not as clear as it should be.  The Father was at pains to tell the Court that he pays monies to his partner so that she can meet KK’s needs, reduced from £1,100 pcm to £400 pcm conveniently, it seemed to the court, now pegged to the level of the sum offered by the Father for HH.

66.      While the Father's outgoings appearing on C4 are neither unreasonable nor extravagant, his evidence about his financial arrangements with his partner are far from transparent.  It is simply not good enough to seek an order for variation from the court but to fail to share with the other party - and the court - an accurate and complete picture of how he and J manage the demands on their finances.  The court treats with scepticism the Father's contention that he does not know how much his partner earns or what monies may be left from his or her redundancy payments which could assist with meeting that household's living costs.

67.      A supplicant to the court seeking an adjustment to court imposed financial obligations must give full and frank disclosure of their financial position or risk adverse inferences being drawn.  I do not believe that the Father is unaware of his partner's financial position or income particularly in circumstances in which he has: -

(i)        willingly paid over to her his redundancy payment;

(ii)       paid monthly into an account in her sole name the monies for a "rainy day fund"; and;

(iii)      67.3 paid her, until very recently, £1,100 per month by way of contribution towards KK’s care and education.

68.      The Court does not accept that these arrangements have been made without some discussion or analysis of their respective positions.  Moreover, the couple's decision for J to stop work when she has worked full time through KK’s pre-school years seems incredible when, at the same time, the Father seeks orders from the court to reduce his obligations to his daughter so that his son can benefit by having J at home when he returns from school.

69.      While it is entirely reasonable for a parent to want to stay at home to provide wrap around and holiday care for their child, for most working families it is simply not an option and when parents agree that this is the right choice for them, they do so on an informed basis i.e. with full knowledge and acceptance of their respective incomes, liabilities and financial commitments. 

70.      The Father accepted that his decision that his partner would give up work would benefit KK and be at a cost to HH.  This is not a price which HH should be required to pay, particularly at her age, the stage she has reached in her education and with the emotional upheaval visited upon her by the breakdown of her relationship with her father.  These factors may not relate to HH’s financial needs, but they are pertinent circumstances of the case before me which I must take into account.

71.      Moreover, I consider the fact that the Father's own financial circumstances have not changed materially since the agreement was reached.  By seeking to reduce the time HH spends with him, the burden of the change of circumstances, such as it is, falls on the Mother.

72.      I have weighed up the parties' respective financial positions and determine that they are both equally capable, if necessary, by making economies, of contributing towards HH’s needs.

73.      Taking all of the above into consideration and using as starting point the agreement reached as recorded in the Act of Court of March 2017, I consider that the appropriate monthly contribution for the Father to make is £750 per month inclusive of a contribution to school fees.  I acknowledge that the Father must also meet the costs of caring for KK.  I have already observed that it seems extraordinary that the entire burden of the cost of KK’s care should fall on the Father in a family where both parents have, or are capable of having, good and well-paid jobs.

74.      The award of periodical payments in the global monthly sum of £750 represents a fair and reasonable contribution by the Father and is inclusive of his contribution to school fees and any other expenses for HH.  The Mother is entitled to be able to budget by relying on the figure she will be receive.

75.      The Mother must meet the cost of any school trips, medical, optical, and dental expenses, the Father to continue to pay through his employer for HH’s medical insurance.  The level of periodical payments will be reviewed in 2024 when it is anticipated that HH will finish secondary education.  The £750 per month periodical payment will, in the meantime, be adjusted annually in line with any increase in Jersey RPI.

76.      The Mother will, going forward, have the benefit of all of the income tax allowances that flow from having the care of HH.  The joint obligation on the parents to share the premia for life insurance for HH’s benefit is to cease but if arrangements can be made - and the Mother wishes -  to take over responsibility for the payment of this policy, that is a matter for her.

77.      So far as the agreed arrears are concerned, I expect the Father to meet these at a cost of £100 per month until discharged. This will take him about two years or so unless he is able to find money from his bonus to meet these arrears at an earlier stage.

78.      I am inviting the parties to let me have details of any legal costs incurred in order that I can consider what order for costs, if any, should be made.

Authorities

Children (Jersey) Law 2002. 

Matrimonial Causes (Jersey) Law 1949. 

L v D and R [2004] JLR 334. 

U v V (Family) [2018] JRC 160. 

Q v R [2018] JRC 041. 

A v B [2020] JRC 015.