Everyone now knows that, with limited exceptions, child maintenance is no longer a matter for the courts but rests with the Child Support Agency.

But what about capital provision? There are occasions when capital support is needed.

How does the applicant -- normally the parent with care -- go about seeking an order?Bear in mind first of all that s.8(7) of the Child Support Act 1991 does permit applications to the court for periodic (weekly or monthly) orders for school fees or other educational expenses.

If this is the basis for the need for capital, this route may be worth considering.

Remember also that if a parent has an immediate need for a capital sum to satisfy some comparatively modest outlay for a child, application can be made for an interim lump sum under s.23(3) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973; this only applies where the parents have been married.A little more is requiredBut when the need is for a larger one-off payment, the position becomes more complicated.

The starting point is that a child has no entitlement as of right to any part of its parents' capital or income.

(The government does not seem to have grasped this point in relation to its proposals for 'reform' of the Child Support Acts, since it proposes that a child receive a fixed percentage of the absent parent's income no matter how large that may be, but that is another matter.)There is a consistent line of authority running through the cases that children are e ntitled to be maintained and educated but, in the absence of disability or other special circumstances, they have no claim on their parents' resources after seeking to be dependent.

For a good summary, see the judgment of Johnson J in T v S (Financial Provision for Children) [1994] 2 FLR 883.

In that case the mother had argued that the Children Act 1989 was a new code and that the court should approach these cases unburdened by the past.She sought an order that capital should be paid to the children for their own use after their majority.

Not so, said Johnson J; the wording of the new Act was strikingly similar to that of the previous legislation and it would be wrong to give either the children or their mother a windfall.

Parents can heave a sigh of relief (at least until the CSA reforms are enacted).A recent case Re B (Child: Property Transfer) [1999] 2 FLR 418 provided an interesting gloss on this principle.

The father had transferred his interest in a jointly owned house to the mother to be used to provide a home for the child until 17 and then to be sold, with the net proceeds being divided as to 30% to the father and 70% to the mother 'for the benefit of the said child'.The father, and the child, argued that the child was entitled to have the 70% share, but this was rejected by the Court of Appeal.

The words 'for the benefit of the child' had been used inappropriately.

It was clear that the parents had struck a deal, under which the mother was to receive an enhanced share of the equity in return for supporting the child.Capital for housingWhat about the real difficulties which may arise in practice, particularly as to housing? Here, the problem is essentially one for the unmarried parent.

A parent who has been married and divorced has his or her own rights to apply for a lump sum and/or property adjustment order under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, and clearly the need to provide a home for a child is one of the responsibilities to which the court must have regard.

It would be very unusual to find a divorced parent applying for capital provision for a child only, but it is very common for a parent to seek, for example, the transfer of the former matrimonial home to her on the basis that she has to provide a home for a child or children.A parent with care who has not been married does not enjoy these rights, and has to make an application for the child under the Children Act 1989 sched 1, which provides for the court to order a parent to pay a lump sum to the child or, as would be more usual, to an applicant parent on behalf of a child, and to settle property for the benefit of the child.The essential point to bear in mind here is that the application is for the benefit of the child; the applicant may benefit incidentally in that she secures a home for herself during the child's minority; but her benefit goes no further than that, and there can be no question of the court considering her needs independently of those of the child (assuming that she has no legal or beneficial interest in the property in question).

However, the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration, and whether the child was unplanned and unwanted is of no significance (see J v C (Child: Financial Provision) [1999] 1 FLR 152).It is fair to say that all the decided cases relate to the provision of a home for a child.

What will the court do in these circumstances? The usual order is that the house is vested in the names of trustees on trust for the child or children until they attain their majority or some other date such as their ceasing their full-time education.

This can also apply to a secure tenancy.

Where the application is for a lump sum, there is a similar approach; the money is used to purchase a property in the same way.The result of this is that, on the child's majority or ceasing full-time education, the property must revert to the settlor, and the child and parent with care must vacate.

The duties of the settlor end when the child is independent.All these decisions assume that a child suffers no disabilities and is capable of leading an independent life, and several of the judgments make this clear.

It must therefore be the case that where a child is unable, through disability or illness, to achieve independence, he or she will have a continuing claim on the parent.

It may well be that, except where the parent concerned is very rich, an application for provision which might last a lifetime would be counterproductive since it might interfere with the benefits (or damages) to which the child would otherwise be entitled, but there is no reason in principle why such an application should not be made.