Shared residency in England

Last updated

Shared residence, joint residence, or shared parenting refers to the situation where a child of parents who have divorced or separated live with each parent at different times, such as every other week. With shared residency, both parents have parental responsibility. Shared residency does not mean that the time the child spends with each parent must be equal. [1] [2]

Contents

Rationale

Shared residency is an option when both parents want to be fully involved in their children's upbringing, when either or both parents consent to the order, and when the Court certifies that the Order as being in the best interests of the child. Compared to children in sole residency that live with only one of their parents, scientific research has shown that children with a shared residency arrangement have better physical health (e.g. sleep, physical activity, smoking, alcohol use), higher psychological wellbeing (e.g. self-perception, life satisfaction, anxiety, depression), fewer behavioural problems (e.g. delinquency, school misbehaviour, bullying) and stronger social relationships (with friends, parents, step-parents and grandparents). [3] [4]

Frequency

Shared residence is relatively uncommon in the United Kingdom. Among children not living in an intact family with both their mother and father, a 2005/06 survey found that only 7% had a shared residence arrangement while 83% lived only with their mother and 10% lived only with their father. [5]

The Children Act 1989 defines a residence order as one "...settling the arrangements to be made as to the person with whom a child is to live". A sole residence order settles the child(ren) in the home of one parent. The other parent will usually be allowed contact. A joint or shared residence order allows the child(ren) to alternate periods of residence between the homes of both parents.

The Children Act 1989 Guidance and Regulations, Volume 1, Court Orders produced by the President of the Family Division (the leading judge of the Family Court, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss) and published by the Stationery Office in 1991 discussed shared orders in paragraph 2.2(8) at page 10: -

...it is not expected that it would become a common form of order, partly because most children will still need the stability of a single home, and partly because in the cases where shared care is appropriate there is less likely to be a need for the court to make any order at all. However, a shared care order has the advantage of being more realistic in those cases where the child is to spend considerable amount of time with both parents, brings with it certain other benefits (including the right to remove the child from accommodation provided by a local authority under s.20), and removes any impression that one parent is good and responsible whereas the other parent is not.

This was the approach in D v D (Shared Residence Order) (2001) 1 FLR 495 , in which it was held that residence of the children involved could be shared, even when one of the parents was hostile to the idea. The principle was clearly stated: it is not necessary to show that exceptional circumstances exist before a shared residence order may be granted. Nor is it probably necessary to show a positive benefit to the child. What is required is to demonstrate that the order is in the interest of the child in accordance with the requirements of s1 Children Act 1989 which makes the interests of the children the first and paramount concern of the Courts in any litigation. In the case of very young children, there is an informal rebuttable presumption in disputed cases that a very young child's interests are more likely to be served by having a single 'base' with one parent, regardless of how the other has performed. This may be rebutted by evidence to demonstrate that the child's interests will be better served by shared residence, or by sole residence with one spouse or with other significant persons. Recently, Baroness Morris of Bolton commented:

If a parent is considered a fit parent when they are married or living together, there is no reason in a normal case why that assumption should change just because they separate or divorce. They should not have to prove that they are able to care for their children by being subject to reversal of the burden of proof that the current system operates. That in no way undermines the presumption that the welfare of the child is a paramount concern; it supports it.

The issue of hostility was addressed in Re M (Intractable Contact Dispute: Interim Care Order) (2003) 2 FLR 636, which provides for the making of an order under s37 Children Act 1989 inviting the local authority to investigate and report. Wall J. found that the mother had caused the children to believe that they had suffered abuse at the hands of the father and paternal grandparents, and that an assessment was needed when the children were not at home with the mother. This was secured away from the home under an interim care order. Free from the mother's influence, the children were rapidly able to re-establish their relationship with the father. Subsequently, an Order was made that they reside with him. Although this approach is not appropriate in all cases involving disputing parents, it is a useful tool to have available. If it is clear that contact is desirable but one parent obstructs it, the risk of significant harm may be present. The judge must prepare a coherent care plan, identifying the reasons for making a Section 37 Order, and stating the consequences of the Order and possible removal. In these proceedings, it is essential that the children are separately represented and that there the same judge is allocated to deal with all aspects arising from the proceedings.

In Family Law, each case is held to be unique on its facts, but the usual process of the interpretation of the law being based on precedents applies. Hence, since D v D, there have been a number of cases where shared residence has been awarded to children in spite of one parent's initial objections or continuing hostility including:

See also

Related Research Articles

New York divorce law changed on August 15, 2010, when Governor David Paterson signed no-fault divorce into law in New York state. Until 2010, New York recognized divorces only upon fault-based criteria or upon separation. The State Senate approved the No-Fault Divorce bill on June 30, and the State Assembly passed the bill on July 1.

Child custody, conservatorship and guardianship describe the legal and practical relationship between a parent and the parent's child, such as the right of the parent to make decisions for the child, and the parent's duty to care for the child.

Child support is an ongoing, periodic payment made by a parent for the financial benefit of a child following the end of a marriage or other similar relationship. Child maintenance is paid directly or indirectly by an obligor to an obligee for the care and support of children of a relationship that has been terminated, or in some cases never existed. Often the obligor is a non-custodial parent. The obligee is typically a custodial parent, a caregiver, or a guardian.

Shared parenting, shared residence, joint residence, shared custody, joint physical custody, equal parenting time (EPT) is a child custody arrangement after divorce or separation, in which both parents share the responsibility of raising their child(ren), with equal or close to equal parenting time. A regime of shared parenting is based on the idea that children have the right to and benefit from a close relationship with both their parents, and that no child should be separated from a parent.

The fathers' rights movement is a social movement whose members are primarily interested in issues related to family law, including child custody and child support, that affect fathers and their children. Many of its members are fathers who desire to share the parenting of their children equally with their children's mothers—either after divorce or marital separation. The movement includes men as well as women, often the second wives of divorced fathers or other family members of men who have had some engagement with family law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fathers' rights movement in the United Kingdom</span>

The fathers' rights movement in the United Kingdom consists of a large number of diverse pressure groups, ranging from charities and self-help groups to civil disobedience activists in the United Kingdom, who started to obtain wide publicity in 2003. Studies show the majority of the UK population support the need for change and protection of fathers rights to meet the responsibility through 50:50 contact. The movement's origin can be traced to 1974 when Families Need Fathers (FNF) was founded. At the local level, many activists spend much time providing support for newly separated fathers, most of whom are highly distraught. Although some have been accused of being sexist by some commentators, these groups also campaign for better treatment for excluded mothers, women in second marriages, other step-parents and grandparents – all of whom suffer discrimination in respect of contact with their (grand) child(ren).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction</span> 1980 multilateral treaty

The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction or Hague Abduction Convention is a multilateral treaty that provides an expeditious method to return a child who was wrongfully taken by a parent from one country to another country. In order for the Convention to apply, both countries must be Contracting States; i.e. both must have adopted the Convention.

Joint custody is a court order whereby custody of a child is awarded to both parties. In the United States, there are two forms of joint custody, joint physical custody and joint legal custody. In joint physical custody, the lodging and care of the child is shared according to a court-ordered parenting schedule with equal or close to equal parenting time. In joint legal custody, both parents share the ability to make decisions about the child, regarding e.g. education, medical care and religion, and both can access their children's educational and health records.

Child custody is a legal term regarding guardianship which is used to describe the legal and practical relationship between a parent or guardian and a child in that person's care. Child custody consists of legal custody, which is the right to make decisions about the child, and physical custody, which is the right and duty to house, provide and care for the child. Married parents normally have joint legal and physical custody of their children. Decisions about child custody typically arise in proceedings involving divorce, annulment, separation, adoption or parental death. In most jurisdictions child custody is determined in accordance with the best interests of the child standard.

In family law, contact, visitation and access are synonym terms that denotes the time that a child spends with the noncustodial parent, according to an agreed or court specified parenting schedule. The visitation term is not used in a shared parenting arrangement where both parents have joint physical custody.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Family Law Act 1975</span>

The Family Law Act 1975(Cth) is an Act of the Parliament of Australia. It has 15 parts and is the primary piece of legislation dealing with divorce, parenting arrangements between separated parents (whether married or not), property separation, and financial maintenance involving children or divorced or separated de facto partners: in Australia. It also covers family violence. It came into effect on 5 January 1976, repealing the Matrimonial Causes Act 1961, which had been largely based on fault. On the first day of its enactment, 200 applications for divorce were filed in the Melbourne registry office of the Family Court of Australia, and 80 were filed in Adelaide, while only 32 were filed in Sydney.

Co-parenting is an enterprise undertaken by parents who together take on the socialization, care, and upbringing of children for whom they share equal responsibility. The co-parent relationship differs from an intimate relationship between adults in that it focuses solely on the child. The equivalent term in evolutionary biology is bi-parental care, where parental investment is provided by both the mother and father.

The fathers' rights movement has simultaneously evolved in many countries, advocating for shared parenting after divorce or separation, and the right of children and fathers to have close and meaningful relationships. This article provides details about the fathers' rights movement in specific countries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian family law</span>

Family law in Canada concerns the body of Canadian law dealing with domestic partnerships, marriage, and divorce.

A noncustodial parent is a parent who does not have physical custody of his or her minor child as the result of a court order. When the child lives with only one parent, in a sole custody arrangement, then the parent with which the child lives is the custodial parent while the other parent is the non-custodial parent. The non-custodial parent may have contact or visitation rights. In a shared parenting arrangement, where the child lives an equal or approximately equal amount of time with the mother and father, both are custodial parents and neither is a non-custodial parent.

<i>Gronow v Gronow</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Gronow v Gronow, was a decision of the High Court of Australia.

Joint custody is a form of child custody pursuant to which custody rights are awarded to both parents. Joint custody may refer to joint physical custody, joint legal custody, or both combined.

In Spain, joint custody is the equal right of both parents to take legal custody of their children. It began in 2005, when a new divorce law introduced the notion of joint custody, subject to the agreement of both parents. Subsequently, some regional parliaments have passed laws that make shared parenting the preferred option.

Malin Bergström is a child psychologist and scientist at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden. She is a specialist in studies concerning the effect on children with different child custody arrangements after divorce or separation. Using cross-sectional and longitudinal study designs, her research group has shown that children have better physical, mental and social outcomes if they live in a shared parenting arrangement compared to primarily living with only one parent.

References

  1. ↑ "Shared Residence". Archived from the original on 27 January 2013. Retrieved 2 October 2012.
  2. ↑ "Residence". childlawadvice.org.uk. Retrieved 7 February 2020.
  3. ↑ Linda Nielsen (2018). "Joint Versus Sole Physical Custody: Children's Outcomes Independent of Parent–Child Relationships, Income, and Conflict in 60 Studies". Journal of Divorce & Remarriage. 59 (4). Journal of Divorce and Remarriage: 247–281. doi:10.1080/10502556.2018.1454204. S2CID   149954035.
  4. ↑ Bergström M; Modin B; Fransson E; Rajmil L; Berlin M; Gustafsson P; Hjern A (2013). "Living in two homes: A Swedish national survey of wellbeing in 12 and 15 year olds with joint physical custody". BMC Public Health. 13: 868. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-868 . PMC   3848933 . PMID   24053116.
  5. ↑ Bjarnason T, Arnarsson AA. Joint Physical Custody and Communication with Parents: A Cross-National Study of Children in 36 Western Countries Archived 19 November 2017 at the Wayback Machine , Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 2011, 42:871-890.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.