Child Arrangement Orders 

1. Introduction

A Child Arrangements Order (CAO) is an order of the Family Court in England and Wales regulating with whom a child is to live, spend time, or otherwise have contact.

The modern framework is principally governed by the Children Act 1989, particularly sections 1, 8 and 11, together with subsequent amendments and Family Procedure Rules.

A Child Arrangements Order replaced the older concepts of “residence orders” and “contact orders.” The central objective is not to determine which parent has a superior legal status, but to make arrangements that promote the child's welfare.

The governing principle is the welfare principle: the child's welfare is the court's paramount consideration when determining the child's upbringing in the circumstances specified by the Children Act.

2. Statutory Framework

A. Children Act 1989, Section 1

Section 1 contains the fundamental welfare principle.

When a court determines a question relating to the upbringing of a child, the child's welfare must be the court's paramount consideration.

The court applies the statutory welfare checklist in section 1(3), where applicable.

Welfare checklist

The court considers:

The ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child, considered in light of the child's age and understanding.

The child's physical, emotional and educational needs.

The likely effect on the child of any change in circumstances.

The child's age, sex, background and any characteristics which the court considers relevant.

Any harm which the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering.

How capable each parent or other relevant person is of meeting the child's needs.

The range of powers available to the court.

The checklist is not a mechanical scoring exercise. The court evaluates the circumstances as a whole.

3. Meaning of a Child Arrangements Order

Under section 8 of the Children Act 1989, a Child Arrangements Order regulates:

with whom a child is to live, and/or with whom a child is to spend time or otherwise have contact.

Thus, a CAO can address two principal questions:

A. With whom the child lives

The order may specify that a child lives with:

the mother;

the father;

both parents;

or another person.

B. With whom the child spends time

The order can establish arrangements for:

regular visits;

overnight stays;

weekends;

school holidays;

Christmas and other holidays;

telephone or video communication;

indirect contact;

supervised contact;

contact through a contact centre.

4. Shared Care / Living with Both Parents

A CAO can provide that a child lives with both parents.

This does not necessarily mean an exactly equal division of time.

For example:

The child lives with both parents and spends Monday–Thursday with the mother and Friday–Sunday with the father.

The court focuses on whether such an arrangement serves the child's welfare rather than attempting to achieve mathematical equality.

The Supreme Court's decision in Re A (A Child) (Shared Residence Order) is particularly important in understanding shared care.

5. Child's Welfare as the Paramount Consideration

The most important principle is that the dispute is not fundamentally about parental rights.

It is about the child's welfare.

The court therefore asks:

“What arrangement best promotes the welfare of this particular child?”

rather than:

“Which parent deserves custody?”

This distinction is fundamental.

A parent does not automatically obtain greater time with a child merely because that parent:

has historically been the primary carer;

earns more money;

owns the family home;

is the biological father or mother;

has a stronger personal claim to the child.

The court considers the totality of circumstances.

6. No Automatic Presumption of Equal Time

There is no automatic rule that children must spend equal time with both parents after separation.

However, section 1(2A) of the Children Act provides that, unless contrary to the child's welfare and in certain circumstances, the court is to presume that involvement of each parent in the child's life will further the child's welfare.

This does not mean:

equal parenting time = legal entitlement.

Rather, it recognises the importance of children maintaining relationships with both parents where safe and beneficial.

7. The “No Order” Principle

Section 1(5) contains the no-order principle.

The court should not make an order unless doing so would be better for the child than making no order at all.

This reflects the idea that judicial intervention should not occur unnecessarily.

For example, if separated parents are already successfully agreeing arrangements for their child, the court may have no reason to impose a formal CAO.

8. Wishes and Feelings of the Child

The child's wishes and feelings are an important factor.

However, they are not automatically decisive.

The court considers:

the child's age;

maturity;

understanding;

whether the views are genuinely held;

whether the child has been influenced by a parent;

the circumstances in which the wishes were expressed.

A 5-year-old's expressed preference may carry different weight from the wishes of a mature teenager.

The court must therefore distinguish between:

listening to the child and allowing the child to determine the litigation.

9. Domestic Abuse and Child Arrangements

Domestic abuse is particularly important in CAO proceedings.

The court must consider whether the child has:

suffered harm;

witnessed domestic abuse;

been exposed to controlling behaviour;

been exposed to coercive control;

been placed at risk through contact arrangements.

The Family Procedure Rules and Practice Direction 12J provide an important procedural framework for cases involving domestic abuse.

The court must avoid treating allegations of abuse merely as ordinary parental disagreement.

10. Contact and Domestic Abuse

Contact is not automatically ordered simply because a person is a parent.

Where there is evidence of significant risk, the court may order:

Supervised contact

Contact takes place under supervision.

Supported contact

A less restrictive arrangement where assistance is available but direct supervision may not be continuous.

Indirect contact

Communication may occur through:

letters;

telephone calls;

video calls;

messages;

cards.

No direct contact

In exceptional circumstances, direct contact may be prohibited where it would be contrary to the child's welfare.

11. Relocation and Child Arrangements Orders

Relocation can generate significant CAO litigation.

Examples include a parent wanting to:

move to another city;

move elsewhere in England and Wales;

move abroad;

return to their country of origin.

The court considers the child's welfare rather than treating relocation as an automatic parental right.

Important factors include:

reasons for relocation;

impact on education;

impact on relationships;

practical arrangements for contact;

financial consequences;

emotional consequences;

child's wishes;

risk of disrupting the child's relationship with the other parent.

12. Parental Responsibility and Child Arrangements Orders

A CAO should be distinguished from parental responsibility.

Parental responsibility concerns the legal rights and responsibilities associated with caring for and making decisions concerning a child.

A Child Arrangements Order determines practical living/contact arrangements.

A parent may therefore have parental responsibility without having the child living with them.

13. Enforcement of Child Arrangements Orders

Where a person deliberately fails to comply with a CAO, the court has enforcement powers.

Depending upon the circumstances, the court may consider:

enforcement orders;

variation or discharge of the existing order;

directions concerning future contact;

costs consequences;

in appropriate cases, sanctions such as unpaid work.

However, enforcement must remain connected to the child's welfare.

The court should not mechanically punish a parent where enforcement itself would cause significant harm to the child.

14. Variation and Discharge

A Child Arrangements Order can subsequently be varied or discharged.

This may occur where there has been a material change in circumstances, for example:

child becoming older;

relocation;

parental reconciliation;

serious deterioration in parental relationship;

domestic abuse;

safeguarding concerns;

educational changes;

medical circumstances;

repeated breaches of arrangements.

The court examines the child's current welfare, rather than simply preserving an arrangement that has become inappropriate.

15. Case Laws

1. Re G (Children) (Residence: Same-Sex Partner) [2006] UKHL 43

Facts

The case concerned children who had been raised by two women, with questions concerning their living arrangements and the role of the biological parents.

Principle

The House of Lords emphasised that the court's task is to determine arrangements according to the children's welfare, rather than applying assumptions based upon traditional family structures.

Importance

The case demonstrates that:

welfare is child-centred;

biological connection is not automatically determinative;

the child's existing family relationships matter.

16. Re A (A Child) (Shared Residence Order) [2002] EWCA Civ 1056

This is an important authority concerning shared residence.

Principle

The Court of Appeal recognised that a shared residence order does not necessarily require an equal division of time.

A shared residence arrangement can be appropriate where it reflects the child's welfare and recognises the continuing importance of both parents.

Importance

The case demonstrates that:

“Shared residence” is a legal framework for the child's living arrangements, not necessarily a 50:50 timetable.

17. Re W (Children) (Family Proceedings: Evidence) [2010] UKSC 12

The Supreme Court addressed the handling of allegations and evidence in family proceedings.

Importance for CAO cases

Child-arrangements litigation often involves serious allegations concerning:

abuse;

neglect;

domestic violence;

manipulation;

parental behaviour.

The court must adopt a proper evidential approach and ensure that decisions affecting children are based upon reliable findings.

The case reinforces the importance of procedural fairness in welfare proceedings.

18. Re L, V, M and H (Contact: Domestic Violence) [2000] 2 FLR 334

This is a leading authority concerning contact where domestic violence is alleged.

Principle

The court must carefully consider the effect of domestic violence upon:

the child;

the resident parent;

the safety of contact;

the quality of parenting;

the feasibility of arrangements.

The court should not treat contact as automatically beneficial where domestic abuse creates a significant risk.

Importance

It established an important foundation for the modern approach to domestic abuse in contact cases.

19. Re C (A Child) (Suspension of Contact) [2011] EWCA Civ 521

The case concerned the suspension of contact arrangements.

Principle

Where circumstances demonstrate that contact may no longer be safe or beneficial, the court can intervene.

The welfare principle requires the court to consider current circumstances, rather than assuming that an earlier contact order must continue indefinitely.

Importance

It illustrates the flexibility of CAOs and the court's ability to respond to changed circumstances.

20. Re B (A Child) (Residence Order) [2009] UKSC 5

This Supreme Court authority is important for understanding the welfare-based approach to residence and child arrangements.

Principle

The court must focus on the child's welfare and make a decision based on evidence concerning the child's best interests.

Parental disputes should not become contests over parental entitlement.

Importance

The case reinforces the centrality of the welfare principle in residence disputes.

21. Re B (Children) (Residence Order: Appeal) [2009] EWCA Civ 545

The case illustrates the appellate court's approach to welfare decisions.

Principle

Family courts have to evaluate the evidence holistically. Appellate intervention is generally cautious because the trial judge has the advantage of hearing the evidence and assessing the family circumstances directly.

Importance

This is particularly relevant where a party seeks to appeal a CAO.

22. Re H (Children) (Contact) [2012] EWCA Civ 129

The case concerned contact arrangements and the court's welfare-based evaluation.

Principle

The court must consider whether the proposed arrangements are realistic and beneficial for the child.

A nominal right to contact is insufficient if the practical circumstances make the arrangement unworkable.

Importance

It demonstrates that the court considers practical reality, not merely formal parental rights.

23. Re A (Children) (Residence Orders) [2009] EWCA Civ 1141

The Court of Appeal considered issues concerning residence and parental responsibility.

Principle

The court must avoid treating parental status as the decisive factor. The central question remains the welfare of the child.

Importance

It reinforces the principle that CAO litigation should be child-focused rather than parent-focused.

24. Key Principles Emerging from the Case Law

The cases collectively establish several important propositions:

1. Welfare is paramount

The child's welfare is the central consideration.

2. No automatic parental entitlement

Being a parent does not automatically determine the outcome of a CAO application.

3. Both parents may remain important

Courts generally recognise the value of maintaining relationships with both parents where this is safe and beneficial.

4. Shared care does not necessarily mean 50:50

A child can live with both parents without spending equal amounts of time with each.

5. Domestic abuse changes the analysis

The court must evaluate risk carefully rather than assuming contact is always beneficial.

6. The child's wishes matter

But the weight given depends upon age, maturity and circumstances.

7. Orders must be practical

The court must consider whether the arrangements can realistically operate.

8. Circumstances can change

A CAO can be varied or discharged where the child's welfare requires it.

25. Important Factors Considered by the Court

26. Procedure for Obtaining a Child Arrangements Order

A typical case may involve:

Step 1 — Application

The applicant normally makes an application to the Family Court.

Step 2 — Safeguarding checks

The court process involves safeguarding enquiries, particularly through Cafcass in England.

Step 3 — First hearing

The court identifies:

issues;

disputed facts;

safeguarding concerns;

interim arrangements;

evidence required.

Step 4 — Interim CAO

The court may establish temporary arrangements pending final determination.

Step 5 — Evidence

Evidence can include:

witness statements;

school records;

medical evidence;

police information;

Cafcass assessments;

expert evidence where appropriate;

communications between parents.

Step 6 — Fact-finding hearing

Where serious allegations are disputed and findings are necessary for welfare determination, the court may conduct a fact-finding hearing.

Step 7 — Final hearing

The court determines the appropriate long-term arrangements.

Step 8 — Final Child Arrangements Order

The court specifies the practical arrangements for living and/or spending time with the child.

27. Interim Child Arrangements Orders

An interim order may be made where an immediate arrangement is required before the final hearing.

Examples:

temporary weekend contact;

supervised contact;

temporary residence with one parent;

restrictions on removal from the jurisdiction;

arrangements for school holidays.

The court must nevertheless focus on welfare and procedural fairness.

28. When Contact May Be Restricted

Contact can be restricted where there is evidence of:

domestic abuse;

violence;

serious neglect;

substance misuse;

abduction risk;

coercive control;

emotional abuse;

serious safeguarding concerns;

persistent harmful parental conflict.

The court may choose a graduated response:

unsupervised contact → supported contact → supervised contact → indirect contact → suspension/no direct contact, depending on the evidence and risk.

29. Child Abduction and CAOs

A CAO can be particularly significant where there is a risk that a parent may remove the child from the jurisdiction.

The court can consider:

prohibited steps orders;

restrictions concerning passports;

injunctions;

undertakings;

specific arrangements concerning international travel.

International child-abduction issues can additionally engage the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

30. Prohibited Steps Orders and Specific Issue Orders

Child Arrangements Orders should be distinguished from other section 8 orders.

Child Arrangements Order

Determines:

With whom does the child live/spend time?

Prohibited Steps Order

Restricts a person from taking a particular step in relation to the child without court permission.

Example:

preventing removal of the child from England and Wales.

Specific Issue Order

Determines a particular question concerning the child's upbringing.

Examples:

education;

medical treatment;

religious upbringing;

change of name.

31. Example

Suppose:

A and B are separated.

Their child is 8 years old.

The child lives primarily with A.

B wants alternate-weekend contact.

A alleges that B has behaved aggressively.

B denies the allegation.

The court will not simply ask:

“Should B have contact because B is the parent?”

Instead, it will assess:

child's wishes and feelings;

evidence of alleged aggression;

risk of harm;

child's relationship with B;

impact of contact on the child;

ability of parents to communicate;

school routine;

practical arrangements;

whether supervised contact is necessary;

whether contact can safely progress.

The final order might provide for supervised contact initially, followed by review and progression if appropriate.

32. Child Arrangements Orders and Parental Conflict

High-conflict litigation can itself harm children.

Courts therefore consider whether:

parents can communicate;

handovers can occur safely;

communication should occur through an app;

contact centres should be used;

indirect communication is preferable;

a detailed timetable is required.

A court may formulate highly specific arrangements where parental cooperation is poor.

33. Child's Best Interests vs Parent's Rights

This is one of the most important distinctions.

A parent may argue:

“I have a right to see my child.”

The court's legal analysis is instead:

“What arrangement concerning this child is consistent with the child's welfare?”

Parental involvement is important, but it is not absolute.

Where parental contact conflicts with the child's welfare, welfare prevails.

34. Case-Law Summary Table

35. Practical Legal Test

A useful way of analysing a Child Arrangements Order problem is:

Question 1

What exactly is being sought?

living with?

spending time with?

supervised contact?

shared care?

Question 2

What does the welfare checklist indicate?

Question 3

What are the child's wishes and feelings?

Question 4

Is there any risk of harm?

Question 5

Are there domestic-abuse allegations?

Question 6

What arrangements are practically workable?

Question 7

Would the proposed arrangement disrupt education, stability or important relationships?

Question 8

Is parental cooperation sufficient for shared care?

Question 9

Would making an order be better than making no order?

Question 10

What precise order best promotes the child's welfare?

36. Conclusion

A Child Arrangements Order is one of the principal mechanisms through which the Family Court regulates the living and contact arrangements of children following parental separation or other family disputes.

The governing philosophy is child welfare rather than parental entitlement.

The court considers:

the child's wishes and feelings;

physical and emotional needs;

education;

stability;

relationships;

risk of harm;

domestic abuse;

parental capacity;

practical feasibility;

the importance of continuing relationships with parents where safe;

and the overall circumstances of the individual child.

The leading authorities demonstrate that there is no automatic right to equal time, no automatic preference for one parent, and no requirement that shared care must mean a 50:50 division. The court must make an evidence-based, child-centred decision.

In essence:

The correct Child Arrangements Order is the arrangement that best promotes the welfare of the particular child, having regard to the statutory welfare checklist and all relevant circumstances.