Family Court reviews dismissal of child maintenance claim and scope of Maintenance Regulation

In MM v FF [2026] EWFC 1, the Family Court considered an appeal against the dismissal of a mother's child maintenance application and whether the Maintenance Regulation framework applied after the UK left the EU.

In [2026] EWFC 1, Mr Justice Macdonald, sitting in the Family Court at the Royal Courts of Justice, heard an appeal by a mother, MM, against a decision of District Judge Devlin at the Family Court in Oxford. The appeal was heard on 24 November 2025 and judgment was handed down on 13 January 2026. The judgment was delivered in private and published on condition that the anonymity of the children and their family is strictly preserved.

Background

The mother had applied for child maintenance for her child, V. The district judge dismissed the application. The mother's initial request had been lodged with the Irish Central Authority some five years and seven months before the final hearing on 20 March 2025. The father opposed the appeal and appeared in person, assisted by his wife as a McKenzie Friend.

At earlier hearings the mother was directed to provide material, including details of V's doctors, proof of full-time education, a certified birth certificate and bank statements. The district judge adjourned the case more than once. A warning that non-compliance would prejudice her application was said to have been given, but it was not reflected in the order.

The questions

The appeal raised two main questions:

• whether the mother's application fell within the legal framework governing Council Regulation (EC) No. 4/2009 (the Maintenance Regulation) following the UK's departure from the European Union; and
• if it did, whether the judge was justified in dismissing the application for breach of case management directions without deciding its merits.

Macdonald J said the issues were somewhat esoteric because the framework will govern an increasingly limited number of cases, but rejected the father's suggestion that the appeal was of little wider use. Where the scope of an individual's legal rights under legislation in force at the relevant time has a material bearing on the outcome, the court must determine it.

The final hearing

The transcript showed that the district judge appeared to proceed on the basis that the only jurisdiction the court had was to recognise and enforce an existing maintenance order. The mother, who had no lawyer, was given only a very limited opportunity to put her case. The judge refused an adjournment, did not engage with her application for a transparency order, and dismissed the claim with brief reasons: non-compliance with earlier orders, delay, and doubt about jurisdiction because there was no existing maintenance order.

Macdonald J noted that if the appeal succeeded, the merits of the maintenance claim would be decided at a later date.

Sources

• MM v FF (Maintenance: Scope of EU Withdrawal Agreement) [2026] EWFC 1, Family Court, 13 January 2026