ZE23P01539 - [2025] EWHC 1403 (Fam)

Ms Callaghan recommends a shared ‘lives with’ order in favour of all adults, with an immediate increase to 4 nights out of 14 to the applicants, by extending the weekend, increasing to 5 nights out of 14 when the child is three years old (when extra nursery days she believes will be available) and 6 nights out of 14 when he starts school, with holidays shared equally. (Ms Hurley made a similar recommendation.)

The applicants agree (broadly) and offer to pay for the extra nursery days which the respondent says will not be available as Ms Callaghan envisaged. The importance of nursery to the proposals is that if collections and delivery can be via the nursery then confrontation between the parties is reduced.

The respondent urges that there should not be a joint ‘lives with’ order, as this does not reflect the reality. She accepts the increase to the weekend contact but would, until January 2027, when extra nursery days become available, lose the midweek contact leaving the applicants with 3 nights out of 14 immediately, increasing to 4 nights in January 2027.

She points to the fact that she does not work while the applicants do work. She is the one who will be around for AB. She tells me of an informal Arabic class that she takes part in with other mothers and which AB attends. She reminds me that he is thriving now and so reasons we should not change things.

I disagree with the respondent in relation to her rejection of a shared lives with order. I see this as a consequence of wanting to avoid the second applicant having parental responsibility. I hold that it is important to recognise that AB has two homes and therefore consider it is in his best interest to have a shared lives with order and make clear it should name both applicants as well as the respondent.

I do however see some force in her observation in relation to the division of time. I take the view that pushing to 5 nights out of 14 imminently may not be in AB’s interests if it is to be achieved only by sending him to nursery for two extra days.I should note that Ms Callaghan did consider there was an advantage to AB in going to nursery more.

I remind myself that AB is generally recognised as growing up very well at the moment and see that as a reason to be slow to change the arrangements too dramatically.

It is for these reasons – how well he is currently doing and prioritising time with the respondent rather than in nursery – that I differ slightly from Ms Callaghan,

As to the significance of nursery being the means of avoiding confrontational handovers, I repeat that currently some handovers take place outside the nursery between the parties rather than by way of a full day at the nursery. Having heard them give evidence I find that the applicants and respondent should be able to conduct themselves civilly to each other at handover and would even benefit from the opportunity of meeting briefly to be able to communicate about AB. They all have AB’s interest at heart and they will all be aware that confrontation and even frosty silence will not help him. I am concerned that it may be an unhelpful indulgence of adult emotion instead of proper concentration on what is in AB’s best interests to set up a scheme whereby the parents do not meet.

Taking all these matters into account, I take the view that the increase should be to 4 days out of 14 immediately, and 5 days out of 14 when AB starts at school. This is to be done (before he starts at school), at the respondent’s election, either by way of an extra day at nursery paid for by the applicants, with one exchange being by way of pick up and drop off and one being directly between the parties, or, without an extra day at nursery but with two direct handovers. I trust her to make the decision whether it will be in AB’s best interest to have an extra day at nursery, and avoid a direct handover, or have a day with her, but have a direct handover. Obviously, she will need to make up her mind which she prefers promptly, and any change of arrangement thereafter will need to give the applicants adequate notice.

I make clear that I do not see this division of time as fixed permanently and expect the parties to be able to adjust the arrangements as should best suit AB in the future. Indeed, I note, the respondent did say in her evidence that as AB grows up, she would anticipate he would spend more time with the applicants. That may well be appropriate.

I am not going to descend into detail about the mechanics of the direct handover. I am aware that the respondent does not want the second applicant to be present. I do not consider his absence is appropriate in the long term. The impression that would give AB would be bad for him. In the short term I consider that it would be insensitive for the second applicant to push himself forward. I anticipate that the parents will address this issue in mediation, and I consider it more appropriate for me to trust everyone to act properly than micromanage the situation.

There are some limited issues about the division of holiday time. It is agreed that it should be divided equally in one week blocks once AB is at school. Until then, while he is at nursery, Ms Callaghan suggests a gradual increase during ‘shadow’ school holidays from four nights to five nights and then a full week.

While this judgment was being drafted, Ms Callaghan has clarified her suggestion is the holiday contact should be 4 nights in 2025, five nights in 2026 and a full week in 2027. I endorse that. The simple arrangement would be for the days to fall in the alternate weeks of the shadow school holidays, subject to the parties agreeing (in writing) an alternative arrangement.

I expect the parents to be able to sensibly address any special days and to adapt the contact arrangements between them. I note that it was agreed during evidence that the respondent should have AB at Eid, and Christmas should be alternated.