A Family Court judge has ordered a significant departure from equal sharing of assets after finding that the lifelong care needs of a severely disabled adult son must be the central factor in resolving his parents’ financial dispute following divorce.

Deputy District Judge Cassidy Hope said the mother’s continuing role as full-time carer for the parties’ 18-year-old son, referred to as XP, meant her financial needs were “significantly greater” than those of the father and justified an unequal division of the former matrimonial home.

XP has substantial disabilities and, the court accepted, is “extremely unlikely to ever be in a position to live independently”. He has lived with his mother since the parties separated in 2019 and has not spent time with his father for several years. The judge found that the mother’s caring responsibilities were likely to continue indefinitely, severely limiting her earning capacity and increasing her housing and living costs.

The court heard that XP would require specialist accommodation, including structural adaptations such as a wet room and reinforced joists, and that equipment and services for people with additional needs were consistently more expensive. The mother also explained that as she grows older, she will need support to continue caring for him and that she wished to provide long-term financial security for him, potentially through a trust.

Against that background, the judge said the case was firmly “needs-driven” and that strict equality of division would be unfair. Although the family home had been bought by the father before the relationship and had been in his family for decades, it had been the matrimonial home for 12 years and had been adapted for XP’s needs, making it a matrimonial asset. The judge nevertheless took the property’s history into account when shaping the final outcome.

The court ordered that the house, valued at £525,000, should be sold, either on the open market or to the father’s adult son from a previous relationship if he is able to raise finance. After repayment of the mortgage, a local authority adaptation loan, reasonable sale costs and certain joint debts, the remaining equity is to be divided 71% to the mother and 29% to the father. A separate pre-marital debt secured by a charging order is to be met solely from the father’s share.

In practical terms, the judge indicated that the mother should receive just over £205,000 to reflect her share and clear her liabilities, while the father would retain a smaller capital sum but may be able to remain in the family home with assistance from his adult son.

Procedurally, the judge explained that a final financial remedy order could not yet be made because the divorce had not reached the stage of a conditional order (the modern term for what was formerly called decree nisi). The judgment therefore sets out an “indication of outcome”, with a binding order to be made once the conditional order has been granted. A further short hearing will be listed unless the parties are able to submit a consent order reflecting the court’s decision.

The judge also rejected the father’s allegation that the mother was concealing inheritance or business assets, finding no evidence that she had access to undisclosed resources, and accepted that her income was limited to state benefits and payments linked to XP’s care.

In conclusion, Deputy District Judge Hope said the mother’s lifelong responsibility for a disabled child was the decisive feature of the case, warranting a clear departure from equal sharing to meet her and XP’s future housing and financial needs.

Please contact us if you would like more information about the issues raised in this article or any aspect of family law.

Case: VP v SP
Neutral Citation: [2025] EWFC 447 (B)
Court: Family Court (CFC Overflow Courts, Royal Courts of Justice)
Judge: Deputy District Judge Cassidy Hope
Hearing: 10 October 2025
Judgment: 20 November 2025