Background
This was a final hearing concerning a young child where the father sought to vary an existing child arrangements order to achieve an equal division of term-time care.
The mother’s case was that the child should continue to spend substantial time with both parents, but that term-time arrangements should remain weighted in her favour so as to reflect the child’s age, routine and need for stability.
There was disagreement about holiday arrangements, including whether longer summer holiday blocks remained appropriate, together with disputes about handovers, special occasions and the degree of detail required in the order to avoid further conflict.
The case arose in circumstances where the parties had found it difficult to manage arrangements whenever there was room for interpretation, with previous disagreement extending to the practical implementation of holiday schedules.
Relevant Law
The court was required to determine the applications under section 1 of the Children Act 1989, with the child’s welfare being the court’s paramount consideration.
The central question was not whether time could be divided equally as a matter of arithmetic, but what arrangement best promoted the child’s welfare, security and routine.
The court also had to consider procedural fairness, including compliance with prior case management directions governing the timing and length of witness statements.
Issues
Whether the child’s welfare was best served by moving to a 50/50 term-time arrangement, as sought by the father, or by preserving a structure that gave the father extensive time but stopped short of equal shared care during school weeks.
Whether the existing holiday arrangements, in particular the summer holiday pattern, remained suitable for a young child.
What level of precision was required within the order so that handovers, FaceTime contact, travel arrangements and special occasions were properly regulated and future disputes reduced.
Challenges
A significant feature of the case was the parents’ continuing inability to manage arrangements smoothly where there was any discretion left open. That made it necessary to press for a tightly drafted and practical order.
There was also a procedural issue arising from the father’s non-compliance with directions concerning his evidence. His statement had been served late and exceeded the page limit ordered by the court, despite that having been an issue in earlier proceedings.
The advocacy challenge was to keep the court’s focus on welfare rather than percentages, and to resist the suggestion that an equal split was automatically the proper outcome simply because both parents played an important role in the child’s life.
Decision
The court made a detailed child arrangements order providing that the child should live with both parents under a joint lives with order, whilst setting out a structured regime for term-time care, school holidays, special occasions, handovers and indirect contact.
The resulting order gave the father substantial time with the child, but did not simply impose a straight 50/50 division during term time. Instead, the court adopted a more nuanced timetable intended to balance the child’s routine with the importance of maintaining a strong relationship with each parent.
The final order also dealt specifically with Easter, half terms, summer holidays, Christmas, birthdays, Mother’s Day, Father’s Day, Halloween, FaceTime contact, passport arrangements and foreign travel.
This case illustrates the court’s preference for a practical welfare-based solution over a purely mathematical approach to shared care, particularly where the parties’ history showed that a detailed order was needed to minimise further disagreement.
For assistance in this area of law, contact clerks@anvilchambers.co.uk