Support of illegitimate child

In re P (child: financial provision) CA TLR 24 June, LSG 14 August and 4 September

The mother and father were not married and conceived a child, L, towards the end of their relationship. The mother came from an affluent background, while the father described himself ‘fabulously rich’. He lived in a house in central London valued at more than £10m. He also had a house in South Africa and employed a large staff. The judge at first instance awarded the mother £450,000 for a house (on the usual terms, to revert to the father eventually) with £30,000 for furnishings, £20,000 for a car (to be replaced at the father’s expense every four years) and periodical payments of £35,360 per annum to be reduced on the child’s seventh birthday and to terminate on the conclusion of secondary education. The father undertook to pay school fees. The mother appealed on the grounds that this was not enough and the Court of Appeal agreed with her. The starting point was to decide the home that the respondent had to provide for the child to enable her to feel at ease in the surroundings that her father inhabited. The house required for the child would cost £1m, with £100,000 allowed for decorations and furniture. How should the judge approach the mother’s allowance? There was an inevitable tension between the two propositions, both correct in law, first that the applicant had no personal entitlement, second that she was entitled to an allowance as the child’s primary carer. The Court had to recognise the responsibility, and often sacrifice, of the unmarried parent who was to be the primary carer of the child. In order to discharge that responsibility, the carer had to have control of a budget which reflected her position and the position of the father, both social and financial. They made a ‘broad brush’ award of £70,000 a year from which the father was entitled to deduct the amount of the State benefits the mother received for the child. This enabled the mother not to be burdened with unnecessary financial anxiety, but on the other hand, what was provided was to be spent by the end of the year for which it was provided, there could be no slack to use for other purposes. The father was entitled to see receipts and to monitor expenditure.