C AND B, Re [2006] NIFam 1 (10 January 2006)

C AND B, Re [2006] NIFam 1 (10 January 2006)

The court held that while shared residence orders are increasingly recognised and not reserved for exceptional cases, the paramount consideration remains the welfare of the children. In this case, given the ongoing acrimony between the parents and the particular needs and expressed wishes of C, a shared residence order would not serve the best interests of the children at this time. The existing arrangements, with agreed contact and a clear schedule of parental responsibility, better meet the welfare needs of C and B.

Citation
[2006] NIFam 1
Parties
Applicant Father: T; Respondent Mother: S; Children (subjects of Proceedings): C and B
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
10 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Family Law Children (joint Residence Order) / Final Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Application for joint residence order refused; existing contact arrangements and schedule of parental responsibility endorsed.
Legal Topics
Joint Residence Orders, Contact Orders, Parental Responsibility, Welfare of the Child, Prohibited Steps Orders
Family Law Child Law Joint Residence Orders Contact Orders Parental Responsibility Welfare of the Child Prohibited Steps Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

T

Applicant Father

S

Respondent Mother

C and B

Children (subjects of Proceedings)

Procedural Posture

Family Law Children (joint Residence Order) / Final Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a shared (joint) residence order is appropriate for children C and B given the acrimonious relationship between parents
  2. 2 Whether the welfare of the children is best served by a shared residence order or by maintaining the status quo
  3. 3 Whether the making of a shared residence order would entrench parental acrimony or reflect the reality of the children's living arrangements

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that while shared residence orders are increasingly recognised and not reserved for exceptional cases, the paramount consideration remains the welfare of the children. In this case, given the ongoing acrimony between the parents and the particular needs and expressed wishes of C, a shared residence order would not serve the best interests of the children at this time. The existing arrangements, with agreed contact and a clear schedule of parental responsibility, better meet the welfare needs of C and B.

Court Disposition

Application for joint residence order refused; existing contact arrangements and schedule of parental responsibility endorsed.

Orders

  • Application for joint residence order dismissed.
  • Contact arrangements as agreed by the parties to continue.