Before You Calculate Child Maintenance, Ask What Happened To The House, The Pension, The Savings, And The Care Of The Children. The Questions That Should Be Asked
- Deanna Newell
- Jul 5
- 3 min read
At the start of every Family Court and Child Maintenance Service application, professionals should complete a mandatory triage assessment.
The purpose is simple: identify risk, vulnerability, coercive control, financial abuse, economic abuse, safeguarding concerns, and the true financial circumstances of the family before allegations become entrenched.
Professionals should ask:-
How long was the relationship or marriage?
Were children involved?
Who was the primary caregiver during the relationship?
Did both parents work during the relationship?
If one parent did not work, why not?
Were they caring for children?
Were they prevented from working through coercive control, financial abuse, disability, or other circumstances?
What was the final divorce or separation settlement?
Who retained the family home?
Who retained pensions?
Who retained savings, investments, and other assets?
What capital payments were made between the parties?
Does the financial settlement reflect the current circumstances being presented?
What evidence supports these claims?
What do bank statements show?
What do communication records show?
Is there evidence of coercive control?
Is there evidence of financial or economic abuse?
Has contact been restricted and why?
Has financial support been restricted and why?
What arrangements existed before separation?
Are there safeguarding concerns?
Is either parent alleging domestic abuse, parental alienation, or post-separation abuse?
What evidence exists to support those concerns?
These questions reveal patterns that allegations alone cannot.
A parent may claim financial hardship while retaining the former family home, substantial pension provision, savings, investments, or other assets obtained through a divorce settlement.
A parent may claim they cannot afford to support their children, yet have walked away from the relationship with financial security, while the other parent is left struggling to meet the children’s daily needs.
A parent may claim they had no choice but to stop working, but the evidence may show years spent caring for children, supporting a partner’s career, or being subjected to coercive control that restricted their independence and earning capacity.
Equally, a parent may claim they are being alienated from their children, while the evidence points towards a history of controlling behaviour, financial abuse, emotional abuse, or inconsistent involvement.
Professionals should not look at income alone.
They should look at the whole picture.
Who got the house?
Who got the pension?
Who got the savings?
Who built their career while the other parent cared for the children?
Who sacrificed employment opportunities for the benefit of the family?
Who now carries the day-to-day responsibility for the children?
Who has financial security, and who is struggling?
These are not insignificant details.
They are often the difference between understanding the reality of a family’s circumstances and simply accepting a narrative.
Facts matter.
Evidence matters.
Context matters.
Without understanding the full financial picture, including the division of assets, housing, pensions, savings, childcare responsibilities, and earning capacity, professionals risk making decisions based on incomplete information.
Family Courts and the Child Maintenance Service should not operate in isolation. They deal with the same families, the same children, and often the same patterns of behaviour.
A structured triage process would identify coercive control, financial abuse, economic abuse, and safeguarding concerns much earlier.
Most importantly, it would shift the focus away from competing narratives and back to where it belongs:
The welfare of the children.
Children come first. Parents come second.
Because no caring parent should place their children into poverty to punish the other parent.
No caring parent should restrict contact to gain financial advantage.
No caring parent should restrict financial support to maintain control.
Children deserve better.
And the system should be asking the right questions from day one.
Facts First. Children First.
Deanna Newell Family Law
Advocacy for truth-tellers, survivors, and the children who deserve better
