So You Think You Can Hide Assets In Children Act Proceedings?

One father certainly thought so but was scuppered in the recent case of Re P (A Child) (Financial Provision s 423 Insolvency Act 1986) 2025 EWHC 1460 (Fam).

The parents began a relationship in 2015 and have one child together, P, now 7 years old. The parents lived together in the Czech republic (they’re both Czech nationals) until 2019 and subsequently separated in approximately 2022. The mother moved to England with P in 2020 with the father’s consent.

The parents had a seemingly amicable co-parenting relationship for a while, with father supporting P in the UK by paying for nursery fees and rent. However, very quickly the father started to unilaterally reduce his financial contributions from a total of c.£4,000pcm in approximately August 2020, to just c.£400pcm by August 2022 (and the mother notes even this was sporadic) and to just £150pcm by August 2024.

The mother started financial proceedings under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 in March 2024. Through this the court has the power to make various financial orders for the benefit of a minor child where parents are unmarried.

Since then, the father has remained in breach of the various court orders including a legal services provision order which now stands at c.£263,168, to make interim child maintenance payments of £1,000pcm, and to provide full and frank financial disclosure and other case management directions.

The father also took steps to try to hide his assets including transferring assets to relatives in the Czech republic and onwards into Trust entities. The court wasn’t fooled.

The mother made an application under s.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986, to be dealt with within the Schedule 1 proceedings.

The judge made a finding of fact that the father was deliberately hiding assets to avoid creditors, and that the mother should be categorised as a creditor. The judge then adjourned the mother’s s.423 application (a future court can revive it if it is needed), but by making the finding of fact a future court can more easily make further orders against the father.

Freezing injunctions against the father which had already been ordered by the court remain in place until the father complies with the various capital orders – so there remains a clear incentive for the father to cooperate!

Welfare proceedings (with both parents seeking lives with orders) are running concurrently to these Schedule 1 proceedings.

The judge was clear that they hoped by not making s.423 orders at this stage, the father may take the opportunity to reflect that the very heart of this (and the welfare proceedings) is consideration for the welfare of a 7-year-old boy.

This is perhaps a typical example of feuding co-parents; however, it is not uncommon for parents to disagree on matters (both big and small) particularly following a complicated or recent break-up. The court who do have a variety of powers and a broad discretion to exercise them, is intended as the last resort for co-parents and most will be able to mediate or eventually reach an agreement on their own.

If you’re having difficulties with your co-parent(s) and would like to discuss your position and your possible options, please don’t hesitate to contact our Family Law solicitors on 0330 822 3451 who are qualified in all areas of children law.