In CA v UK [2025] EWFC 117 (B), His Honour Judge Watkins delivered a sharp, thoughtful decision on an increasingly familiar scenario: how and where to resolve international child maintenance disputes when parents, assets, and court orders span multiple continents. At the heart of this case was an issue that’s rarely litigated but often debated: can a parent apply under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 to make an order against themselves?
Spoiler: no—but not for the obvious reasons.
The Background: From New York to Nottingham via California
The mother and father, both British nationals, divorced in New York. That court ordered the father to pay around £3,800 per month in child support. The mother and children later relocated to the UK, where the children became habitually resident. Meanwhile, the father moved to California.
This geographic triangle gave rise to a jurisdictional dilemma:
- The mother initiated enforcement proceedings in New York, which eventually ceded jurisdiction.
- The father then applied under Schedule 1 in England, not to resist maintenance, but (unusually) to formalise an English-based child support order—presumably to simplify the arrangements and reflect his current earnings.
The mother objected, arguing that:
- California was the more appropriate forum, especially as she had now registered the New York order there.
- The father's Schedule 1 application was procedurally flawed, since a parent cannot, under the plain wording of the statute, apply for an order against themselves.
Key Legal Issues and What the Court Decided
- Forum Conveniens
Following Spiliada Maritime v Cansulex, the judge asked: is there another more appropriate forum for resolving this dispute?
Yes—California.
- The father’s income was generated there.
- Child maintenance calculations in California are formulaic and tailored to local tax structures.
- Proceedings were already underway there.
- Any English order would still require registration and enforcement in California, with associated risk and delay.
- Multiple proceedings across jurisdictions risked fragmented and inefficient litigation.
The court therefore stayed the father's Schedule 1 application.
- Can You Apply Against Yourself under Schedule 1?
The father’s application sought an order requiring himself to pay child maintenance—presumably into the UK court framework. This was procedurally innovative, perhaps even well-meaning, but ultimately misconceived.
Judge Watkins concluded that Schedule 1 does not permit a parent to apply for an order against themselves. The statutory language is clear: an order must be made to the applicant, or directly to the child. Legal gymnastics were suggested to get around this—such as the court making an order to the mother or the children—but the judge rejected these as inconsistent with the legislation.
This rare ruling may close the door on a growing workaround sometimes used in cross-border support cases.
Why This Matters for Practitioners
- International enforcement is not just a technicality. Even cooperative parties may face difficulties when orders must be enforced abroad, particularly when defaulting parties live in the US or elsewhere.
- Schedule 1 has limits. The statute wasn’t designed for mutual applications or administrative regularisation. Lawyers should resist the temptation to stretch its wording for convenience.
- The child's habitual residence is important—but not always determinative. Even where children live in England, enforcement and variation of child support may best be resolved where the paying parent resides.
- Think strategically about forum. Enforcement, taxation, and evidence all favour the payer’s jurisdiction in some cases, especially where courts apply fixed child support guidelines, as in California.
Final Thought
CA v UK offers more than a tidy lesson in forum conveniens—it’s a reminder that statutory frameworks must be respected, even in creative international family law scenarios. As cross-border parenting becomes increasingly common, clarity about what the English courts can—and cannot—do under Schedule 1 becomes all the more important.
For practitioners handling international cases, the takeaway is clear: pick your forum wisely, and don’t ask the court to order what it has no power to give—even if it sounds fair.
