What is Shared Parenting?

“An arrangement whereby children freely enjoy the love and nurture of both parents and their wider family following separation or divorce …it does mean that sufficient time is spent with each parent for the child to view each parent as a parent rather than an aunty or uncle.”

(ASP definition of Shared Parenting as adopted by CAFCASS in 2004)

It follows that a Shared Parenting arrangement does not mean a 50/50 split of time.  Our experience, gathered over 17 years of operations, shows that with the parental issues put to one side, a Shared Parenting arrangement works well and dramatically reduces the short and long term potentially damaging effects on the children of family breakdown. 

Shared Residence Orders

The principle of shared residency was incorporated in s.11(4) of the Children Act 1989, which states that:

Where a residence order is made in favor of two or more persons who do not themselves all live together, the order may specify the periods during which the child is to live in the different households concerned.

Despite there being provision for shared residence orders in the Children Act 1989, the traditional view was that children needed the stability of one home and that to keep a child going backwards and forwards between the a mothers and fathers home was not in the child's best interests.  Indeed, when the concept of shared residence was considered by the higher courts, it was held that it was necessary to show that 'exceptional circumstances' existed and that there would be a positive benefit to the children before a shared residence order would be granted.  

However, in more recent years, there has been a shift towards the shared parenting concept and the increased use of shared residence orders.  Case law has established that a shared residence order can be granted where it can be shown to be in the best interests of the child.  It is no longer necessary to demonstrate exceptional circumstances or positive benefits to the children.  Indeed, case law has also established that there need not be a harmonious relationship between the parents to grant a shared residence order, as if this were the case, then the no-order principle would simply apply.  The distance between the parents homes should not be a barrier to making shared residence order as orders have been made where the parents have lived vast distances apart and also in different countries.  The time spent by the child with each parent need not be equal - the split in time the child spends with each parent could be 70:30, 60:40 or any other combination. 

Case Law

D v D (Shared Residence Order) [2001] 1 FLR 495

The case of D v D made it clear that it was not necessary to demonstrate exceptional circumstances or a positive benefit to the child - it was sufficient to show that the order was in the child's interests.  The Court of Appeal held that, where a child was spending a substantial amount of time with both parents, a shared residence order could be appropriate despite the existence of a high degree of animosity between the parents.

Re F (Shared Residence Order) [2003] EWCA Civ 592, [2003] 2 FLR 397

A shared residence order was made to parents living in England and Scotland.  A shared residence order can straddle a country and an ocean!

Re R (Residence: Shared Care: Childrens Views) [2005] EWCA Civ 542, [2006] 1 FLR 491

This established that the failure of parents to co-operate is not a bar to making a shared residence order

The Benefits of Shared Residence and Shared Parenting

• Removes the need for a child to choose between the parents
• Allows both parents to love and nurture the child in much the same way as they did prior to parental separation and therefore promotes the continuation of family life
• The child does not feel rejected by the non-resident parent and does not blame himself
• Confirms to the child that he still has two parents who love and wish to care for him 
• The child derives emotional and psychological security from having two fully engaged parents
• The child is no longer brought up to believe that the resident parent is the real, better or main parent and that the non-resident parent is a lesser parent or to be rejected
• Re-affirms the responsibility of each parent to care and provide for the child
• Sends a clear message to the resident parent, schools, doctors, CAFCASS and the courts that both parents are equal and that all decisions relating to the child should be based on this principle
• The child is more likely to grow up in a well-adjusted manner
• Reduces parental hostility as it requires both parents to negotiate and make joint decisions 
• Prevents the breach of court orders and therefore the need to continually return to court