Can a Non-Resident Parent Claim Under Schedule 1?
This post covers the law as it applies in England and Wales (correct at July 2026). | Estimated reading time: 6 minutes
Most people assume Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 only works one way: the resident parent, the one caring for the child day to day, claims against the non-resident parent, who has more money. That's the shape of nearly every reported case, and it's often how solicitors describe the law to new clients.
But the statute itself isn't written that narrowly. It allows either parent to bring a claim, and in principle, a non-resident parent with meaningfully less money than the resident parent could look to Schedule 1 too. So, what happens when the parent with less money isn't the one the child lives with most of the time? Perhaps care is genuinely shared, or perhaps the arrangement has shifted since separation and the old labels no longer reflect reality.
What Schedule 1 Actually Allows
Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 sets out the framework for financial provision for children whose parents were never married, along with certain claims that sit alongside divorce. It allows the court to order periodical payments, lump sums, or the transfer or settlement of property, all for the benefit of the child rather than either parent personally.
Most people first encounter child maintenance through the Child Maintenance Service, which uses a standard formula based on the paying parent's income. Schedule 1 sits alongside this, and becomes relevant where the CMS has limited or no jurisdiction, for example, where a parent's income exceeds the CMS ceiling. We've written before about how this works for child maintenance top-up orders in cases involving high earners.
What the Court Looks At
The court's starting point is the checklist set out in Schedule 1 itself: each parent's income, earning capacity, property and other resources; their financial needs and responsibilities; the child's own needs; any disability; and how the child is being, or will be, educated.
Nowhere in that checklist does the court ask who holds the label of resident parent. It asks what the child’s needs are and who can reasonably meet those needs. This matters in cases involving shared or near equal care, which are becoming more common as parenting patterns shift away from the traditional single household model. As the law currently stands, there's limited reported case law specifically addressing claims by a non-resident parent, so this remains an area that solicitors’ approach cautiously.
Shared Care and the Funding Gap
If a father earns significantly less than a mother but the children split their time roughly equally between two homes, the court's task is still to look at the whole picture: both parents' resources, both households, and what a fair outcome for the children looks like across both homes.
What Schedule 1 Is Not
It's worth being clear about what Schedule 1 is not. It's not a mechanism for a non-resident parent to secure money or a home for themselves. Every order made under Schedule 1, whoever applies for it, must be for the benefit of the child. A father with modest means and shared care can't use it to top up his own income or acquire a property in his own right. What he can do, in principle, is ask the court to consider whether the child's home with him meets an appropriate standard, given the other parent's resources. Any housing provision would be time capped until children reach the age of 18 of finish full-time secondary education, meaning that any property, or share of property paid for by the other parent would return to them at this point.
For readers going through a divorce rather than separating as unmarried parents, similar issues around housing and children's needs are usually addressed as part of the wider divorce financial settlement, rather than through a standalone Schedule 1 claim.
Who pays the costs?
Unlike most Children Act proceedings, where each party usually pays their own costs, Schedule 1 doesn't follow that rule. A weak or opportunistic claim can result in a costs order against the applicant, which is one of several reasons why claims of this kind, even where they have genuine merit, are approached carefully and often resolved through negotiation rather than a contested hearing. However, it is also worth noting that the financially vulnerable party can ask the court for an interim lump sum or for interim periodical payments specifically to cover ongoing legal costs in order for them to pursue their schedule 1 claim where appropriate.
What This Means for You
If you're a non-resident parent with meaningfully less financial resource than your child's other parent, and you're a genuine part of your child's day to day life, it's worth taking advice on whether financial provision for children under Schedule 1 has any application to your circumstances. Outcomes will depend heavily on the specifics of your case: how care is actually shared, what the child needs, and what each parent can realistically provide.
We're always happy to have a no-obligation chat about the way forward if you're trying to work out where you stand. Call us on 020 45789 5360.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a Non-Resident Parent Claim Under Schedule 1?
In principle, yes. The statute allows either parent to apply, and the court's task is to look at the child's needs against both parents' resources, not to ask who holds the label of resident parent. This is most relevant where care is genuinely shared or has shifted since separation. As the law currently stands, this fact pattern has limited reported case law, so outcomes remain fact dependent.
Does Schedule 1 Only Apply to Wealthy Parents?
No, although most reported cases involve a significant wealth gap between the parents. Schedule 1 exists to meet a child's needs from whichever parent has the resources to do so, and the court's checklist applies regardless of how modest those resources are. In most cases, advice from a family law solicitor will help clarify whether a claim is realistic given the specific finances involved.
What Can the Court Order Under Schedule 1?
The court may order periodical payments, a lump sum, or the transfer or settlement of a property for the child's benefit. Any order made must be for the child, not for the applicant parent personally. Property orders in particular usually revert to the paying parent once the child turns 18 or finishes full time secondary education.
Is There a Risk of Having to Pay the Other Parent's Costs?
Yes, this is one of the key differences between Schedule 1 and most other Children Act proceedings. The usual rule that each party pays their own costs doesn't apply, so an unsuccessful or weak claim can result in a costs order against the applicant, although this is unlikely where an application is necessary in order to obtain financial disclosure from the other parent in order to be able to assess the merits of any claim, and where there is a significant wealth gap between the parties.
