Step Parent/Child Arrangement Order

[HappilyHadesBound]

I'm looking at this purely from a legal perspective at present, would be wonderful if anyone is able to help!

I'm SM to my DH's 2 DC's. There is a previous CAO in place (under which I'm not named as we were not married or even living together at the time) under which the children live with BOTH Mum and my DH on a 50/50 basis- not primarily resident with either.. However, the arrangements aren't working as Mum refuses to work with us, as well as there being safeguarding concerns (Family Services and School, not just us) around the care she provides, so we have applied for a new CAO. This is not an amendment to the previous one, but an entirely new one, and so we made the application on a joint basis- as I am SM now, they live with me as much as DH and we feel that PR would be important for education and medical needs.

The court however, has decided before even having a hearing to remove me from the application. The reasons the legal advisor has given relate to me not being on the previous order (which should be irrrelevant to the new application anyway, and was not appropriate at the time) and not having PR- but me gaining PR was one of the major reasons for it being done jointly.

Due to the safeguarding concerns, we specifically want the order to state that they live with both DH and myself, so that if anything happens to him, they wouldn't default to living with Mum, and would remain with me as well as whatever she is awarded- not only would they have lost their Dad, but they'd then be entirely living with the parent where this is risk of harm.

Everything we've read, everywhere we've looked, says that I have the right to be named on the CAO, so we cannot understand on what basis the court can summarily remove me- can anyone advise on this at all? I'm so grateful for any help.

We do have a solicitor but she's not available over the next few days and if we're going to challenge this decision it needs to be done within 7 days.

Both @Collaborate & @prh47bridge have explained that guardianship realises differently dependent upon whether both parents are named in a 'lived with' CAO or just one of the parents is named. In the instance only one parent is named in a lived in CAO and that parent appoints a guardian, guardianship takes effect upon that parent's death irrespective of the fact that there is another living parent with PR. The guardianship confers PR on the individual named. The living parent may of course challenge this in court.

It would seem OP's case will hinge on whether the court perceives it is in the child's best interest to make a lived with order to the father / step mother in lieu of the current joint lived with order citing both parents.

@HappilyHadesBound I'm curious if children's services have suggested to your DP/you, in view of the level of involvement with the mother, that it would be best to change the CAO to a lived with you/ your DP? If they support this it would certainly help your case.

They won't go so far as to make that specific recommendation unfortunately, but there is great detail about the concerns and level of risk with mum and repeated mention of there being no concerns at all with us and the contrast between the two home and family environments.

I don't want to go into detail about the concerns as it would be too identifying were mum to come upon this thread- I keep typing extra bits and deleting them because it's just too identifying.

@HappilyHadesBound Understand, in this case it seems likely this come down to whether they feel the risks are sufficient to merit a change and if a change in lived with status is likely to mitigate the risks. Social services had lots of concerns ref my ex, and labored the contrast between our homes along with emphasizing the protective nature of home with me... similar to how you describe. A lived with order to me, and very prescriptive / limited contact for my ex has, I am sad to say, made absolutely no difference whatsoever to the risk he presents or the perpetual flow of issues he causes or the impact this has on our child.. the court is a blunt tool in cases like this, as the court can only influence to the extent of orders the court has the power to make. Sadly, the court cannot micromanage individuals who are motivated to act other than in a child's best interest.

I completely understand, the balance of risk is terrible. However, there would be some things we can reduce and mitigate (I don't want to be too detailed as mum would spot things a mile off).

It's finding that balance between reducing the risk and encouraging a meaningful relationship... so hard