Family

Husband and wife - ancillary relief - whether power to make child maintenance ordersDorney-Kingdom v Dorney-Kingdom: CA (Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, P, Thorpe LJ and Smith J): 15 June 2000

The parties, who had married in 1983, had three children now aged 14, 12 and 9.

Having found during ancillary relief proceedings that the wife had no entitlement to substantive relief, a district judge had ordered, inter alia, the husband to pay 200 per month for the benefit of each child until they reached the age of 17 or ceased full-time education, such sums to be reduced pro tanto by any sums payable as child support maintenance pursuant to the Child Support Act 1991.

On the wife's appeal the circuit judge had increased that sum to 999 per month for the children.

The husband appealed.

Nicholas Yates (instructed by Peter Knipe & Co, Chalfont St Peter) for the husband.

Dominic Brazil (instructed by BP Collins & Co, Gerrards Cross) for the wife.Held, allowing the appeal, that since the Child Support Act 1991 there was no jurisdiction to make an order in ancillary relief proceedings for periodical payments for the maintenance of children except, under s.

8(5) of the 1991 Act, where the parties consented to the making of such an order; and that the practice of making a Segal order, whereby an order for spousal maintenance under s.

23(1)(a) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 incorporated some costs of supporting children as part of the global family budget until the Child Support Agency had completed its assessment, required as a prerequisite a substantive entitlement to spousal support in order to preserve its legitimacy.