Shared Residence Case Law Summary

The Custody Minefield Factsheets – Smartphone Series (optimised for smartphone users). Copyright Michael Robinson 2010. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's printer for Scotland.

Return to the Family Law Menu or return to The Custody Minefield

Re H (Shared Residence: Parental Responsibility) [1995] 2 FLR 883  - <Back to Top>

"This is a case where a shared residence order is not artificial but of important practical therapeutic importance. This is a case where its making does reflect the reality of the father's involvement and reflect the need for him to be given some status with the school to continue to play his part as both parties wish to do."

"Shared residence has a different psychological impact from residence with one, contact to another because, as contact is defined, it requires that the parent with whom the child lives, must allow the child to visit or stay with the other parent. Here it was necessary for the boys to know they lived with the respondent and that they did not just visit him."

D v D (Shared Residence Order) [2001] 1 FLR 495 - Download - <Back to Top>

"I am not certain that one does have to demonstrate a positive benefit [to the child] to make a shared residence order. One does have to demonstrate that a shared residence order is in the interest of a child in accordance with the requirements of section 1 f the Children Act 1989"

Shared residence orders could be considered even when one parent was hostile to the idea.

Re A (Children) (Shared Residence) [2002] EWCA Civ 1343 - <Back to Top>

A shared residence order need not only be made in exceptional circumstances, confirmed the authority and competence of both parents and should be considered where there was a relatively smooth passage of children between the parent's homes, and the homes were in close proximity.

Re F (Children) [2003] EWCA Civ 592 - Download - <Back to Top>

A shared residence order may be made, even when parents live considerable distance apart (in this case, England and Scotland) so long as the children divide their time between two homes (this does not mean the equal division of time). Parents living in separate countries does not prevent the granting of a shared residence order.

A v A [2004] EWHC 142 (Fam) - Download - <Back to Top>

The court found that a shared residence order 'removes any impression that one parent is good and responsible and the other is not, and has the benefit of being more realistic in those cases where the child is to spend considerable amounts of time with those parents'.

Lord Justice Wall further confirmed that shared residence orders may be made even when one parent is hostile to the idea (and otherwise the 'no-order principle' would apply).

'If these parents were capable of working in harmony, and there were no difficulties about the exercise of shared parental responsibility, I would have …. made no order as to residence.'

Re C (A Child) (Shared Residence Order) [2006] EWCA Civ 235 - Download - <Back to Top>

'...the whole tenor of recent authority has been to liberate trial judges to elect for a regime of shared residence, if the circumstances and the reality of the case support that conclusion and if that conclusion is consistent with the paramount welfare consideration.'

Lord Justice Thorpe identified the following factors which, he considered, supported the making of a shared residence order:

·       the child has a strong attachment to both parents, happy and confident in both homes;

·       there was real proximity between the two homes;

·       there was real proximity of the homes to the school;

·       there was real familiarity with both homes and sense of belonging;

·       the child expressed a perception of two homes;

·       there was relatively fluid passage between the two homes;

·       there was relatively fluid passage from school to the two homes;

·       there was some post-separation history of shared care.

Re P (Children Shared Residence Order) [2006] 1 FLR 309 as repeated in Re K (Shared Residence Order) [2008] 2 FLR 280 - Download - <Back to Top>

"Such an order emphasises the fact that both parents are equal in the eyes of the law and that they have equal duties and responsibilities as parents. The order can have the additional advantage of conveying the court's message that neither parent is in control and that the court expects parents to co-operate with each other for the benefit of their children."

Re W (Shared Residence Order) [2009] EWCA Civ 370 - Download - <Back to Top>

The judgment in Re W reaffirmed that unusual circumstances are not required before a shared residence order can be made, although there was the implicit suggestion that where the time the child spends in the two households is close to being equal, a shared residence order should be made. Also, that a shared residence order can be made as a consequence of one parent's deliberate and sustained marginalisation of the other. The judgment further confirmed that it was a contradiction to grant a contact order to a person who has a shared residence order.

AR (A Child: Relocation) [2010] EWHC 1346 (Fam) - Download - <Back to Top>

In this case, and with regard to the granting of shared residence orders, the Honourable Mr Justice Mostyn comments "Indeed such an order is nowadays the rule rather than the exception even where the quantum of care undertaken by each parent is decidedly unequal. There is very good reason why such orders should be normative for they avoid the psychological baggage of right, power and control that attends a sole residence order, which was the one of the reasons that we were ridden of the notions of custody and care and control by the Act of 1989." (The Children Act 1989)

TCM Comment: While undoubtedly true in some regions, in some courts shared residence orders continue to be rarely made. With regard to the granting of shared residence, the approach of courts and individual judges is not consistent, and each judge has a 'wide ambit of discretion' in deciding what arrangements to make for children. It may be useful to refer both CAFCASS and the court to the judgment in AR (A Child: Relocation), which was made in the High Court, should they be leaning toward granting a sole residence order.

Support <Back to Top>

The Custody Minefield offers support forums where you can ask our team of experienced support staff questions about family law, the courts and separation. Collectively, we have answered more than 10,000 posts on other family law related support forums. Visit our Support Forum Page on The Custody Minefield website to find out how to register.

Return to the Family Law Menu or return to The Custody Minefield