Speak to a member of our specialist international team of UK family lawyers today on 0330 107 0107.
Why Making It Personal Can Undermine Both Cases
Disputes involving children and finances are often closely connected. Decisions about where a child lives, how they spend time with each parent, and how finances are resolved are frequently shaped by the same underlying issues: trust, communication and the ability to prioritise long-term stability.
One of the most common mistakes people make in both child arrangements and financial remedy proceedings is allowing emotion and personal grievance to drive the litigation. When this happens, focus shifts away from the child’s welfare or the fair resolution of finances, often to the detriment of both cases.
Turning Proceedings into a Personal Conflict
Family court is not designed to determine who was “right” or “wrong” in a relationship. In both children and financial remedy matters, judges are concerned with practical outcomes: what arrangements best meet the child’s needs, and how finances should be resolved fairly and proportionately.
Parents who use proceedings to relitigate the breakdown of the relationship — whether through repeated allegations, hostile correspondence or rigid positions — often weaken their credibility. This approach can make it harder to persuade the court that they are capable of ensuring what is in a child’s best interests, cooperative parenting or reasonable financial decision-making.
Failing to Take a Child-Focused Approach
In children cases, the court’s paramount consideration is the child’s welfare. Parents who frame their position around fairness to themselves, rather than the child’s lived experience, frequently struggle to gain judicial support.
This mindset often spills into financial remedy matters. Where financial arguments appear driven by punishment, control or leverage rather than need, fairness and future planning, judges may be less receptive. The court expects parties to separate emotional conflict from practical decision-making in both contexts.
Using Finances or Children as Leverage
Courts take a particularly dim view of attempts to use either children or finances as bargaining tools. This may include:
- Resisting or limiting contact to gain a financial advantage
- Delaying or obstructing financial disclosure to exert pressure
- Linking child arrangements to financial outcomes
- Threatening escalation of litigation to force agreement
Such conduct can raise concerns about insight, reasonableness and motivation — all of which are often relevant to how a judge assesses both children and financial remedy cases.
Overlooking the Long-Term Impact
Judges are focused not only on immediate outcomes, but on sustainability. In children matters, this often means arrangements that promote emotional stability and reduce conflict. In financial remedy cases, it means solutions that allow both parties to move forward independently and avoid ongoing dispute.
A parent who demonstrates foresight, proportionality and a willingness to resolve matters constructively is usually far more persuasive than one entrenched in blame or short-term advantage.
What a Strong, Balanced Case Looks Like
While children and financial remedy cases involve different legal tests, successful outcomes in both are underpinned by similar principles. The court is usually reassured by parties who present clear, reasoned and forward-looking positions.
In Children Proceedings
A strong case is usually grounded in:
- A clear focus on the child’s welfare, routine and emotional needs
- Practical, workable proposals for living and contact arrangements
- An understanding of how conflict affects the child
- A willingness to support the child’s relationship with the other parent, where it is safe to do so
Parents who demonstrate insight, empathy and flexibility are far more likely to gain the court’s confidence.
In Financial Remedy Proceedings
A balanced financial case is characterised by:
- Full, frank and timely financial disclosure
- A realistic assessment of needs, resources and future earning capacity
- Proportionate positions focused on fairness rather than punishment
- Engagement with negotiation, mediation or other forms of dispute resolution
The court expects parties to approach financial proceedings with pragmatism and a view to achieving a clean, workable outcome.
Together, these approaches demonstrate that a party is capable of separating emotional issues from practical decision-making and acting responsibly across all aspects of the dispute.
Key Takeaway
In both children and financial remedy proceedings, the biggest mistake is allowing personal conflict to overshadow the child’s welfare and the need for fair, forward-looking financial solutions.
If you are dealing with children and/or financial proceedings, early advice can help you take a strategic, child-focused and proportionate approach. IMD Solicitors advises clients across England and Wales on navigating complex family disputes with clarity, realism and long-term outcomes in mind.
This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. Please note that the law may have changed since this article was published.
