Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Latest articles
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
View all articles

RESIDENCE: Re F (Shared Residence Order) [2009]

Sep 29, 2018, 17:22 PM
Slug : re-f-shared-residence-order-2009
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Mar 3, 2009, 09:06 AM
Article ID : 86257

(Court of Appeal; Ward, Longmore and Moore-Bick LJJ; 3 March 2009)

The parents had two children. The couple separated for a period of 18 months during which the father was the primary carer; the mother had problems with alcohol and drugs. The parents then reconciled for a further 3 years, after which the mother moved out of the family home, taking the children with her, and settled in a different town. The father applied for a residence order. The evidence at the hearing was that both parents could meet the children's needs, that the children would thrive in either household, and that both parents were capable of caring for the children more than adequately. The Cafcass officer recommended a shared residence order. The judge made a shared residence order on the basis that the children were to live with the father, but stay with the mother on alternate weekends, plus one extra weekend every 8 weeks, and for half the school holidays, plus all the half-term breaks. The mother appealed on the basis that the status quo was with her, and that the children should therefore not be removed without good reason.

The appeal was dismissed. The judge had been entitled to come to the conclusions he had reached. Since the enactment of the Children Act 1989, it was better to address the check-list factors than to rely on any presumption of fact that might arise from status quo arguments; such arguments merely meant that if children were settled in one place, the court had to have regard to s 1(3)(b) of the 1989 Act, and consider the likely effect on the children of any change in circumstance.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from