CA v UK [2025] EWFC 117 (B) (09 April 2025)

The most convenient and appropriate forum for resolving the child maintenance dispute is California, where F resides and earns his income, and where enforcement proceedings are already underway. English proceedings would result in fragmented litigation and additional complexity. Statutory difficulties with F's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2025] EWFC 117 (B)
Parties: Applicant: F; Respondent: M
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 09 April 2025
Procedural Posture: Child Maintenance Application Under Schedule 1 Children Act 1989 / Forum Conveniens Determination
Outcome: F's application under Schedule 1 Children Act 1989 is stayed in favour of proceedings in California.
Legal Topics: Forum Conveniens, Child Maintenance, Jurisdiction, Enforcement of Foreign Orders

Family Law Private International Law Forum Conveniens Child Maintenance Jurisdiction Enforcement of Foreign Orders

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9

Parties

Applicant

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Child Maintenance Application Under Schedule 1 Children Act 1989 / Forum Conveniens Determination

Legal Issues

1 Which jurisdiction is the most convenient forum for resolving child maintenance disputes between the parties: England & Wales or California?
2 Does Schedule 1 Children Act 1989 permit an applicant parent to seek an order against themselves?

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

F's application under Schedule 1 Children Act 1989 is stayed in favour of proceedings in California.

Orders

Stay of F's Schedule 1 application
Parties to inform court regarding further issues, including costs, and whether a further hearing is necessary

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.