Attached is a recent Judgement from 2024, where a Father appealed a final order that said the children should live with the Mother. The Appeal Judge awarded a shared care order. Point 81 of the Judgement has some useful points when arguing why shared care should be ordered. This Judgement is also useful recent caselaw for shared care. For the Judgement, click on "Go to Download" top right.
81 The welfare advantages for each child of a shared lives with order in the present case would be that:
i) It would make it more difficult for either parent to regard themselves as being in control of contact or to seek to control contact – a problem that the Judge had specifically identified.
ii) In particular, it would mitigate the effects of the Respondent's attempts to control contact which the Judge had noted from the ISW's evidence and had himself observed were not positive. Rather than ordering the Respondent to make sure the children spent time with the Appellant, a shared lives with order would set out arrangements for the division of time in the same terms for each parent, if not the same periods of time. It would thereby put the parents on an equal footing when seeking to make arrangements for the children.
iii) It would also put the parents on an equal footing with regard to holidays abroad including during school holidays when the children are going to spend equal time with each parent.
iv) A shared lives with order would signal to each parent that each was of value in the lives of the children, something the Judge had found each parent failed to appreciate.
v) It would also signal to the children that each parent has, in their capacity as parent, the same inherent importance in the children's lives.
vi) It would promote a sense of stability within the family: whatever the disagreements between the parents, the court had ordered that the children shall live with both of them.
81 The welfare advantages for each child of a shared lives with order in the present case would be that:
i) It would make it more difficult for either parent to regard themselves as being in control of contact or to seek to control contact – a problem that the Judge had specifically identified.
ii) In particular, it would mitigate the effects of the Respondent's attempts to control contact which the Judge had noted from the ISW's evidence and had himself observed were not positive. Rather than ordering the Respondent to make sure the children spent time with the Appellant, a shared lives with order would set out arrangements for the division of time in the same terms for each parent, if not the same periods of time. It would thereby put the parents on an equal footing when seeking to make arrangements for the children.
iii) It would also put the parents on an equal footing with regard to holidays abroad including during school holidays when the children are going to spend equal time with each parent.
iv) A shared lives with order would signal to each parent that each was of value in the lives of the children, something the Judge had found each parent failed to appreciate.
v) It would also signal to the children that each parent has, in their capacity as parent, the same inherent importance in the children's lives.
vi) It would promote a sense of stability within the family: whatever the disagreements between the parents, the court had ordered that the children shall live with both of them.
