Assumption: "I've been the parent who has stayed at home and looked after the children, so I deserve to have a lives-with order made for me with an unequal sharing of contact. It shouldn't be 50/50."
1 min readThis content reflects observational insights and lived community experiences. It does not constitute legal advice — always consult a qualified professional for your specific circumstances.
Court Reality
The court's paramount consideration is the child's welfare, not what a parent feels they 'deserve' (s.1 Children Act 1989). Being the primary carer is a relevant factor, but the court decides the arrangement that best meets the child's needs — which may or may not involve equal or unequal time.
This insight was contributed by someone who has been through the family court system. Bridge The Gap is deeply grateful to everyone who shares their experience — your honesty helps bridge the gap for the next person still in it.
Download the card and post it on Facebook, LinkedIn, or wherever you're active. Every share helps another litigant find this before their hearing.
The Gap?
"I've been the parent who has stayed at home and looked after the children, so I deserve to have a lives-with order made for me with an unequal sharing of contact. It shouldn't be 50/50."
Court Reality
The court's paramount consideration is the child's welfare, not what a parent feels they 'deserve' (s.1 Children Act 1989). Being the primary carer is a relevant factor, but the court decides the arrangement that best meets the child's needs — which may or may not involve equal or unequal time.
Experienced a gap between what you thought you knew about family court and the reality? Share your own and get credited.
familycourtbridge.org
Navigating court alone?
A McKenzie Friend can help you make sense of this in the context of your own case.
Find your supportCookie Consent
We use essential cookies only to provide you with the best experience on our website. No tracking or analytics cookies are used.