Financial provision for young adults

Financial support doesn’t always end at 18. In certain circumstances, a young adult can ask the court to require a parent to continue providing financial provision.

Where a young adult over 18 needs ongoing support from a parent – including one they may be estranged from – the law can, in limited circumstances, provide a remedy. That remedy sits within Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989.

Can a parent be compelled to provide financial support?

The short answer is yes, provided specific conditions are met. Schedule 1 allows the court to make financial provision for a child who has reached adulthood, regardless of whether the parents are married, unmarried, separated or living outside the jurisdiction of England and Wales.

To bring a claim, the young adult must be living within the jurisdiction of the courts and either:

• Still be in education or training
• Have ‘special circumstances’ that justify ongoing financial support.

What counts as ‘special circumstances’?

This is a broad concept with no single definition. Importantly, it’s not limited to physical or mental disability. The courts take a fact-specific approach, assessing how an individual’s circumstances affect their ability to live independently and support themselves.

Why Schedule 1 is under scrutiny

Schedule 1 has long been criticised by legal commentators as being in need of reform, particularly in the context of unmarried parents.

Where married parents separate, financial claims are usually resolved within divorce proceedings. The court can recognise career sacrifice and financial disadvantage, especially where one parent is the primary carer of young children and their ability to work full time, seek promotion or progress their career might be affected by childcare responsibilities. This disadvantage is often more pronounced where the child has special circumstances. Spousal maintenance can be awarded to address this imbalance on divorce.

No equivalent remedy exists for unmarried parents. There is no requirement to pay maintenance to the parent with care responsibilities, even where significant sacrifices have been made. In some cases, an unmarried parent may reach the end of a child’s dependency without a pension, capital, career progression or secure housing. At present, family law reform in this area is not a government priority.

Case spotlight: Ogbedo v Taiga [2026]

In a March 2026 reported decision, Ogbedo v Taiga, I represented 24-year-old twins and their mother. In previous proceedings, their father, who lives in Lagos, Nigeria, had accepted his wealth to be at least £40m. While the precise level of his current wealth was disputed, it was accepted that he could afford to make further financial provision.

The father argued that the English court didn’t have jurisdiction, but that challenge failed. The court concluded it could make further orders despite the twins’ age and notwithstanding technical arguments relating to historic child maintenance orders.

The special circumstances in this case

The application focused on one of the twins, referred to in the judgment as “G”. She has a complex neurological profile, with physical and cognitive challenges that significantly affect her daily life and independence.

Her conditions impaired her ability to manage everyday tasks, including personal care and using public transport. She had no social life outside the home and was frequently overwhelmed by her circumstances.

Over several years of litigation, the court had ordered her father to pay maintenance, school fees and healthcare costs, and to provide a house for G, her twin and their mother to live in. Those orders were coming to an end. The property would have to be sold, maintenance would cease and there would be no money for ongoing therapeutic or medical support.

G and her sister applied for:

• A house to be purchased in G’s name outright
• Continued maintenance and medical costs to be met by their father.

The court was satisfied that special circumstances existed. The judgment recorded that G was suffering from “a complex neurodevelopmental profile including autism spectrum disorder, dyslexia, dyspraxia and severe anxiety”.

Expert evidence confirmed that her difficulties were longstanding and lifelong, affecting her academic, social and occupational functioning. Despite her cognitive strengths and academic achievements, she was at high risk of underemployment and social isolation without targeted intervention.

The outcome

The court accepted that ongoing financial provision was required. Sir Jonathan Cohen ordered the father to purchase another property for G’s occupation, together with her twin and mother, alongside maintenance payments and a healthcare fund.

He didn’t, however, require the property to be held in G’s name outright.

Many legal commentators have welcomed the decision as an important development in the case law, reinforcing that where special circumstances exist, parents with the financial means to do so may be required to continue providing support beyond childhood.

Why it matters

Caring for dependants can be physically and emotionally demanding, time-consuming and costly. Often, the parent providing that care will have made significant financial sacrifices that go unrecognised.

There is a common misconception that once a child reaches 18 or finishes full-time education, a parent’s financial obligations automatically end. In such cases, the law takes a different view.