Case No. LS20P01640

11.The application is brought under Schedule 1 of the CA 1989; the mother seeks various forms of relief for Zoe under para.1 of that Schedule, including periodical payments, secured periodical payments, lump sum, and a settlement of property.12.I have addressed specific issues of law in this judgment (below) as they arise. But I regard it as important to set out here the general principles against which I exercise my powers under Schedule 1. 13.First, when making an award under this legislation I must have regard to the matters set out in para.4 of Schedule 1, which reads as follows:“In deciding whether to exercise its powers under paragraph 1 or 2, and if so in what manner, the court shall have regard to all the circumstances including—(a) the income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources which each person mentioned in sub-paragraph (4) has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;(b) the financial needs, obligations and responsibilities which each person mentioned in sub-paragraph (4) has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;(c) the financial needs of the child;(d) the income, earning capacity (if any), property and other financial resources of the child;(e) any physical or mental disability of the child;(f) the manner in which the child was being, or was expected to be, educated or trained.”14.The seminal authority on Schedule 1 cases remains Re P [2003] EWCA Civ 837. In the leading judgment of the Court of Appeal Thorpe LJ at [44] discussed the role of ‘welfare’ (of the subject child(ren)) in the determination of such a claim:“… welfare must be not just ‘one of the relevant circumstances’ but, in the generality of cases, a