In Re D v D (Children) (Shared Residence Orders): CA 20 Nov 2000

Three children, after their parents’ separation, spent substantial amounts of time with each, despite the acrimony between their parents and frequent court applications. The father argued that without a shared residence order he was treated as a second-class parent by authorities with whom he had to deal over matters relating to the children. The judge made a shared residence order, and the mother appealed.
Held: Earlier decisions restricting the circumstances where shared residence orders should be made may be incorrect. In this case, the children had continuing staying contact with their father. There remained many and repeated points of dispute about administering the contact, but it was clear that the mother accepted in principle that the children would be staying with their father for some of the time. In such circumstances, shared residence might well be in the interests of the children. It was not necessary to establish exceptional circumstances, or any positive benefit for the child provided it could be shown to be in the children’s best interests.

Hale LJ, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P
Times 08-Jan-2001, [2000] EWCA Civ 3009, [2001] 1 FLR 495, [2001] 1 FCR 147, [2001] Fam Law 183
Bailii
Children Act 1989 8(1)
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedA Father (Mr A) v A Mother (Mrs A); Their Two Children (B And C) FD 4-Feb-2004
After a divorce, the father sought a joint residence order for the two young children. The mother alleged sexually inappropriate behaviour by the father. The court found this allegation clearly untrue. The dispute was bitter and protracted. . .
CitedIn re AR (A Child: Relocation) FD 10-Jun-2010
ar_childFD2010
Both parents had parental responsibility. The French mother wished to return to live in France and to take the five year old child with her, applying to court for the appropriate order.
Held: The court pointed to the real difficulties always . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.81826