Shared parenting – a move in the right direction?

On 17th June 2011 the Shared Parenting Orders Bill will receive its second reading in the House of Commons.

When, a child’s residence, formerly known as ‘custody,’ cannot be agreed by his/her parents, it will be determined by the Court. The Courts are governed by the Children Act 1989 and, whilst the Court’s paramount consideration is the welfare of the child, it will take into consideration various other factors to determine with which parent a child shall live including the child’s wishes and feelings, the capability of the parents to meet his/her needs and any harm the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering. The Court does have the option to make a shared residence order where a child spends significant periods of time with each parent but typically, where a child’s place of residence is in dispute, the Court will be asked to specify with which parent the child shall live and, often, the level of contact s/he shall have with the non-resident parent. The Shared Parenting bill is seeking to change the way in which the Courts consider the arrangements for children.

The Bill was initially presented on 13th July 2010. The purpose of the proposed legislation is to ensure that, wherever possible, children benefit from the full involvement of both parents in their upbringing. A “shared parenting order” means an order providing for both parents to have a full involvement in the upbringing of a child particularly in respect of major long-term issues, and requiring that the child must spend a substantial and significant amount of time with both parents. This is to be distinguished from a shared residence order.
The presumption of shared parenting has been considered by the Family Justice Review in their interim report dated 31st March 2011. The Panel comments that currently the Court follows case law which sets out that it is almost always in the interests of a child whose parents are separated that he or she should have contact with the parent with whom the child is not living (Re P (Contact: Supervision) [1996] 2 FLR 314). The Court will only depart from this presumption where the potential for harm to the child outweighs the benefit of parental contact.

Shared parenting legislation is increasingly common elsewhere in the world. Australia, France, Denmark, Belgium and a number of US states are examples. However, the Family Justice Review Panel considered evidence from Australia and Sweden in particular about the harm caused to children resulting from the conflict between parents where the legislation has created a presumption of shared time. It concluded that these countries have experienced difficulties in interpreting and implementing the legislation which goes against the aim of family lawyers and policy makers to keep disputes regarding children away from the Courts.

As a result of this evidence, the panel has concluded that no legislation should be introduced that creates or risks creating the perception that there is a parental right to substantially shared or equal time for both parents. It is recommended that the existing legislation should be amended to include a general statement of intent, to reinforce the importance of the child continuing to have a meaningful relationship with both parents, alongside the need to protect the child from harm.

There are concerns that to adopt such a broad-brush approach will remove the current case-by-case approach which is tailored to the individual needs of the child. A presumption of shared parenting could move away from the current role of the Courts to make decisions in the best interests of children and may favour the best interests of the parents.

Sophie Key at Rogers & Norton comments " the principles of shared parenting would be beneficial to many families. That said, applying the presumption to all families could be detrimental to the welfare of some children – no two cases are the same, and the current legislation providing for every case to be considered on their individual factors is a much safer option. "

Whether the proposed shared parenting legislation comes into force remains to be seen but it would appear that the fight for children to have an equal relationship with both parents is as strong as ever.

Should you wish for any further information or advice on Children matters please contact Sophie Key on sok@rogers-norton.co.uk or 01603 675666.

Lone Workers Seminars

May has been a busy month for Phil Kerridge as he presented two seminars on the Legal Implications of Employing Lone Workers on successive nights.  Firstly, Phil took part in a seminar that was co – presented with OneStream, Sitex Orbis and NORCAS at the Forum in Norwich.  The seminar examined an Employer’s general legal obligations towards employees who work alone.

The following night Phil made a presentation on the same subject to the Norfolk Association of Estate Agents at their branch meeting, which took place at Dunston Hall.  On this occasion, the seminar was particularly focussed on the risks facing the Estate Agency industry.

Phil would be happy to speak to anybody who missed either of the above events but would like to discuss the possible ramifications of this issue for their business. He can be contacted on 01603 675603 or alternatively at pnk@rogers-norton.co.uk.









The importance of file notes for Surveyors and other professionals

John Cadywould, partner in the firm's Commercial Dispute Resolution team, was recently invited to give a keynote presentation to the annual conference of the national agents/surveyors Brown & Co. The presentation focused on the practical importance for all professional advisors on keeping a proper written record of instructions received and advice given and in particular its relevance in the context of disputes arising between the professional and his client over the service or advice provided.



John Cadywould



When things go wrong between professional and client and a complaint or claim for professional negligence arises, then file notes become of crucial significance in the Court’s weighing of conflicting evidence of what was really said or done.  Using examples from his experience and the reported cases John provided guidance to the delegates upon what he would recommend as best practice and took a number of questions on the practical and legal issues which can arise.  John has many years’ experience and recognised expertise in a wide range of commercial dispute resolution and was ideally placed to provide the delegates with the benefit of his experience.

The presentation was part of Rogers & Norton’s ongoing commitment to offering clients and contacts practical legal guidance and added value business advice.

For more information please contact John Cadywould on 01603 675603 or email jbc@rogers-norton.co.uk.