The client contacted the office following some issues with their ex-partner. The client was not on the birth certificate for the parties daughter. Steps were taken for the parties to add the client to the child’s birth certificate but at the last moment, the ex-partner contacted the client and informed them that the relationship was over. 

The ex-partner relocated to another area taking the child with them. They had obtained legal advice from their solicitors who told them not to have the client registered on the birth certificate because of the implications that would have in terms of parental responsibility and the client would then have to consent to the child moving school.

The client tried to contact the school but was not successful. Therefore they issued an Application for a Child Arrangement Order and Parental Responsibility.

When the client had contacted the firm, the child had already moved school and the client was keen not to disrupt the child too much in terms of schooling and focus on getting a formal routine of contact between them and their daughter, as the ex-partner was not cooperative.

The ex-partner made it really difficult for the client to communicate directly with them. The ex-partner would allege that the client was harassing them although there was a clear form of open communication between the parties. The ex-partner then issued an Application for a Non Molestation Order in their local Court which was a different Court to location of the Children Act proceedings. The proceedings were consolidated and CAFCASS were ordered to prepare a Section 7 Report.

The parties had come up with an agreement as to when the child could spend time with the client. The ex-partner asserted that the children could not be away for a set period of days however would assert that the child could be away from the client for a longer period of time thus creating inequality in contact. 

CAFCASS filed their report which detailed the ex-partner’s position which was that she wanted a Child Arrangement Order for the child to live with them and wanted to reduce the amount of contact that the client was having to alternate weekends.

CAFCASS recommended that if the parties couldn’t agree then that could have an emotional impact on the child and then the Court should go with their recommendations. This detailed that the client would have the child Thursday to Friday alternates and Monday overnight.   Unfortunately this was significant reduction in the contact the client already had which was equivalent to 50% of the time with the client and ex-partner.   

At a final hearing, the parties were able to agree a shared care arrangement so that both parties could take an active role in the child’s life so that it was split 50/50 equally. The care divided so that each party had a weekend with the child and the child‘s schooling was not interrupted. Handover of the child would take place on a Thursday which assisted with a minimal impact on the school week and assisted the parties with reducing the amount of direct contact they also had with each other.

The ex-partner at first was opposed to alternative Christmases, indicating that the child had to remain with them. However after lengthy negotiations, it was eventually agreed that Christmases were to be alternated between the parties. The ex-partner also withdrew their application for a Non Molestation Order.

The client was very pleased with the outcome of the case and the agreement that was reached in Court.