Hi, I have one coming up. S7 was sadly as predicted/feared, “no welfare reasons exist to drive a change to schedule of care” would be a way of summing it up. But it’s also ordered that our child attends pre-school on those days in which she is normally under my care. In effect, my child’s time with me is being substantively reduced rather than increased.
The other reason is that there was a change to the schedule of care 1.5 years ago and another change so soon would be harmful etc. It’s such an impossible argument to argue against.
Sorry to hijack your thread. DRA is soon. The court follows S7 recommendations in 97% of cases I always read. I’m just in despair to be honest. Our child is asking for more time at our home (albeit child is young). What hope is there of any kind of positive change that allows our child to have more of a comfortable home with us? To have two comfortable homes with her parents?
This whole argument of “any change to a child’s routine is bad” defies logic. Also, pointing out that there have been previous litigation as an argument against shared care: without previous litigation, our child would barely know me. It’s unfair (on the child) to use the existence of previous litigation as a stick to beat me with.
I realise I haven’t asked a question. And again, I’m sorry for hijacking the thread. Have there ever been any examples of where a father wasn’t in a relationship with mother when child was born (and hence “started from scratch” as it were) but a balanced share of care was obtained (something more than every-other-weekend)?
