Can You Hide Assets to Avoid Child Maintenance? Lessons from F v EE [2026]

A recent Family Court decision has sent a clear message to those seeking to avoid their financial responsibilities following separation.

In F v EE [2026] EWFC 249 (B), the court demonstrated its willingness to use its enforcement powers where a party deliberately attempted to place assets beyond reach in order to avoid meeting their child maintenance obligations.

The case provides an important reminder that attempts to hide, transfer or dissipate assets may not only fail, but can ultimately result in more serious consequences.

Case Details

The parties had three children and separated in August 2021. Divorce and financial remedy proceedings concluded in January 2023. Following the conclusion of those proceedings, the former husband left the UK and did not return. As a result, the court had jurisdiction to make a child maintenance order. Despite this, no child maintenance was paid after his departure.

At a hearing in April 2025, the former husband was aware that the former wife was seeking a capitalised child maintenance award. The day after the hearing, he wrote to the court and the former wife’s solicitors asking for the next hearing to be delayed until September 2025. It later became apparent why.

During the intervening months, evidence emerged that the former husband was taking steps to place assets beyond the former wife’s reach. In July 2025, he transferred a UK property with equity estimated to be between £440,000 and £550,000 into a trust that he had established for the benefit of his sister.

The court later heard evidence suggesting that his sister was unaware of the true purpose behind the transfer and the wider ongoing proceedings.

Deputy District Judge Hodson ultimately found in favour of the former wife after the former husband failed to pay a lump sum of almost £150,000, representing capitalised child maintenance and costs that had been ordered previously. The court ruled that the property should be sold to meet the outstanding liability if alternative funds were not raised by the end of September 2026.

What is the significance of this case?

Capitalised child maintenance is rare

Unlike spousal maintenance, child maintenance is not commonly capitalised into a single lump sum payment. However, the court considered this to be an appropriate case for such an order due to the former husband’s history of non-payment and the practical difficulties in enforcing ongoing maintenance against someone who had left the jurisdiction.

The case serves as an example of the court adapting its approach where there are genuine concerns about future compliance.

Strong evidence made the difference

One of the most striking aspects of the judgment was the quantity of documentary evidence available to support the former wife’s case. The court found compelling evidence that the former husband had taken steps to “defeat the anticipated order of the Court”.

The judge noted that it is relatively uncommon to see such clear paper evidence demonstrating a party’s intentions. This highlights a crucial point for anyone involved in financial remedy or enforcement proceedings: contemporaneous documents, correspondence and financial records can play a decisive role in the outcome of a case.

The Court has wide enforcement powers

Family courts have significant powers to enforce financial orders and prevent parties from frustrating the administration of justice.

In this case, the court effectively restored the position that would have existed had the trust arrangement never been created. The trust deed was set aside and an order made for the property to be sold to satisfy the outstanding maintenance obligations.

The judgment demonstrates that where a party deliberately seeks to avoid their obligations or manipulate their financial affairs, the court can and will intervene.

Can assets be hidden during divorce or child maintenance proceedings?

Many people mistakenly believe that transferring assets into a trust, giving them to a family member or moving them into another person’s name will protect those assets from future claims.

This case demonstrates that the court will look beyond the legal structure of a transaction and consider its true purpose. Where there is evidence that arrangements have been put in place to defeat a claim or avoid compliance with a court order, the court has powers to unravel those arrangements and restore fairness between the parties.

Key Takeaways

The decision in F v EE provides some important lessons:

• Attempts to hide or dissipate assets may be uncovered and reversed by the court.
• Documentary evidence can be critical in proving a party’s intentions and conduct.
• The court has extensive powers to enforce child maintenance and financial orders.
• Deliberately frustrating court proceedings can have serious financial consequences.

Ultimately, this judgment serves as a warning that parties who attempt to avoid their financial responsibilities through asset transfers or other dishonest conduct cannot assume those arrangements will withstand scrutiny.

Need advice on child maintenance or enforcement proceedings?

If you are facing issues relating to child maintenance, financial remedy proceedings, enforcement of court orders or concerns about a former partner hiding assets, seeking early legal advice is essential. Our Family Law team can advise on protecting your position, tracing assets and pursuing enforcement action where necessary. Get in touch with a member of the team to discuss your circumstances.