There is a broad consensus among experienced researchers and practitioners that, under normal circumstances, the evidence supports common housing for children under 4 years of age whose parents live apart. There is significant international research and growing evidence to support the hypothesis that children who stagnate in common care have the same or better outcomes than traditional housing and contact agreements. Common parenting expert Professor Linda Nielsen recently studied 60 studies on parenthood and common outcomes for children, taking into account various performance indicators – as in “Joint Versus Solo Custody Physical: Children`s Outcomes Independent of Parent-Child Relationships, Income, and Conflict in 60 Studies,” Journal of Divorce – Remarriage 2014 59 (4): 247-281. In 54 of these studies, it was found that children performed better or more consistently in all cases of parenthood. This seems to support the premise that collective care can promote the well-being of children. Finally, in GL/JL 2017 Fam LR 54, the parties had a competing desire for residence and the persecutor was seeking a specific request to relocate with the two-year-old outside Scotland. Lady Wise refused to place orders, which indirectly promoted shared support between the parties that had previously been exploited. Shared care requires the agreement of all parties, including the patient. Effective communication and a permanent link between all parties to a joint care agreement are essential. Our specialized family lawyers have the experience of helping parents find a common child care plan. We are happy to discuss all your options with you and help you throughout the process, whichever option you choose best for you and your family. A recent Supreme Court decision clarified the situation in child support cases where both parents have the same custody of children. For the purposes of this policy, a drug is considered eligible for a common care regime if it can be initiated in secondary care and then prescribed by a general practitioner in primary care and meet the following criteria: the terms “shared care” and “shared education” are equally attractive, as they depart from the terms “place of residence” and “contact” loaded with value, which are incantative and probably refer to a hierarchy of the respective parents.
Arguments against a legal presumption of shared care appear to be more compelling. Opponents argue that this could compromise the superiority of the best interests of the child and the importance of the existing welfare test. It assumes that the application of a crude conceptual theory of what is best for children in general should prevail over a tailored assessment of individual circumstances and well-being. Anecdotal evidence supports the argument that, where there is clear evidence that such an arrangement would be in the best interests of the child, the law requires a judge to issue an order that they would not otherwise have been able to make: see Jonathan Herring in the passage mentioned above. After separation, the adage of the “weekend father” is no longer appropriate in many cases. Joint care, if voluntary between co-operative parents, can be of great benefit to both the child concerned and to separated adults.