Child arrangements orders

Child arrangements orders

Section 8(1) of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) defines a child arrangements order (CAO) as an order relating to:

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

  2. when a child is to live, spend time or otherwise have contact with any person

See: Child arrangements orders—client guide.

Child arrangements orders—regulating living arrangements

A CAO may regulate with whom a child is to live and when a child is to live with any person (this covers those matters formerly contained within a residence order). A CAO does not determine the location where the child is to live.

See Practice Note: Child arrangements orders—residence.

The order may be made in favour of more than one person and arrangements as to where the child is to live may be shared.

See Practice Note: Child arrangements orders that provide for a child to live with two or more persons who do not live together.

When making a CAO, the child's welfare is the court's paramount consideration. The court must take into

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Family News

Monumental Supreme Court decision on matrimonialisation and sharing principle (Standish v Standish)

Family analysis: The Supreme Court’s much-anticipated judgment confirms unequivocally that the sharing principle does not apply to non-matrimonial property. Sharing of matrimonial property will usually be 50:50, though there may be a departure from equal division where justified. Non-matrimonial property typically has either a pre-marital origin, or, where it is received during the currency of the marriage, an external source (eg an inheritance). Title to an asset is expressly not determinative as to whether that asset is or is not matrimonial. Though non-matrimonial property may become matrimonial (ie ‘matrimonialisation’) this will depend on how the parties have been dealing with the asset and whether, over time, they have been treating that asset as shared between them. The concept of matrimonialisation is to be applied neither ‘widely’ nor ‘narrowly’ (contrary to what the Court of Appeal had held)—again, the enquiry should focus on how the parties have dealt with the asset. Where an asset is transferred from one spouse to another with the intention to save tax (as had occurred in the case), this will not normally show that the asset is being treated as shared. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the decision to dismiss the wife’s appeal, though it did not wholly agree with the Court of Appeal’s reasoning. Pursuant to that decision (made on the sharing basis) the wife would be provided with circa £25m of the total assets figure of circa £132.6m, being half of the matrimonial assets figure of £50.48m. David Wilkinson, solicitor at Slater Heelis, considers the judgment.

View Family by content type :

Popular documents