Unmarried woman wins childcare pay-out

THE first "palimony" award in Scotland under legislation that gives greater rights to unmarried couples has been made to a woman who will receive £14,460 from her former partner.

In the groundbreaking case, the woman, 35, a legal secretary, successfully claimed for the cost of sending her two children to breakfast and after-school clubs. The award is over and above payments already being made by the father through the Child Support Agency.

The 2006 Family Law (Scotland) Act introduced rights for cohabiting couples to seek financial settlements when relationships ended, although the rights are not as extensive as those enjoyed by married couples, or people who have entered a civil partnership.

The Court of Session heard the woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, lived in her own Midlothian home before starting a relationship with the man, a local-authority manager. He moved in and they spent eight years together, having two children.

The woman had given up her job when she had the children, and has returned to part-time work. The children stayed with their father at weekends and one night during the week. When their mother could not take them to school or pick them up because she was working, their maternal grandfather looked after them.

In her court action, the woman claimed a total of 70,000, mainly to cover what was said to be the economic disadvantages she had suffered during the relationship by staying at home with the children and losing wages, pension rights and the chance to advance her career.

The judge, Lord Matthews, said the woman's loss had to be balanced against the contributions the man had made during their time together. He had been the breadwinner and had paid the mortgage. They had carried out extensive renovations to the house. It belonged to the woman, and although at the end of the relationship she had been left with a bigger mortgage because of borrowing to pay for the improvements, the property was now far more valuable and large enough for her and the children.

"In my opinion, the figures at least even out," said Lord Matthews in deciding that no payment was justified for the woman's economic disadvantage, apart from 1,460, which the man should pay as a half share of money owed due to tax credit overpayments.

The man, who represented himself at the hearing because he said he could not afford lawyers, had been ordered to pay 75 a month by the Child Support Agency. Under the 2006 act, the woman was able to also claim for the "economic burden of caring for a child".

Lord Matthews said that, at present, the woman was fortunate to have the help of her father, who asked for nothing for helping with the children.

Lord Matthews calculated that the total bill until the children reached 16 was likely to be around 26,000.

"It seems to me that the economic burden of looking after the children has to be shared fairly. I propose to divide the figure in two and to order payment by (the man] of 13,000," he said.

The judge fixed instalments of 400 a month.