Child arrangements orders

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

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

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Family News

Separate representation of children following final Hague Convention return decision (Re A and B (Separate Representation))

Family analysis: This case involved an application by the children (brothers, aged 12 (A) and 10 (B)) to be represented separately from their Cafcass guardian. After the making of a final return decision and the Court of Appeal’s refusal in respect of their mother’s application for permission to appeal that decision, the solicitor instructed directly by the children sought the High Court’s permission for separate representation and set aside of the final return decision. The children already had party status due to the parallel asylum proceedings. The application for A to be separately represented was refused, despite his solicitor (a ‘most experienced professional’) having assessed him as having sufficient understanding (per Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, r 16.29,) to give instructions on his own behalf. B did not yet possess such an understanding and the fact that his older brother did was immaterial. The proposed set aside application was held to be unarguable and to have no prospect of success. The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, provided helpful guidance for practitioners on separate representation applications, particularly where the relevant child’s views have been compromised by a parent’s influence. David Wilkinson, solicitor at Slater Heelis, examines the issues.

Family weekly highlights—21 November 2024

This week’s edition of Family considers the interface between property law and financial remedy in the context of bankruptcy and the role of the financial dispute resolution hearing in financial remedy proceedings. Four new flowcharts setting out the steps to be taken in applications for financial provision after overseas divorce or dissolution and applications for pension sharing orders are set out, together with details of a new webinar on AI and family law.

Exceptional reasons required to bypass FDRs (GH v GH)

Family analysis: In GH v GH, Mr Justice Peel confirmed the importance of the financial dispute resolution hearing (FDR) and that bypassing this hearing to go from first appointment to final hearing is only appropriate in exceptional circumstances. This applies even where financial positions are not fully crystallised at the time of the FDR.

Family weekly highlights—14 November 2024

This week's edition of Family weekly highlights includes details of the latest Family Procedure Rule Committee meeting minutes, the President of the Family Division’s address to the British Society of Paediatric Radiologists and the Family Justice Council’s 17th annual debate. Judgments in relation to parental orders, charging orders and overseas adoption are considered. Details of a new toolkit on Scottish family law are set out.