Joint or sole residency for dc's - can anyone advise please?

[snowpoint]

I'm going through a divorce with H due to his infidelity and mildly emotionally abusive behaviour.

We have 2 dc's aged under 5. I've been a SAHM since they arrived, H has worked away from home and has only ever had a weekend relationship with them. Now that we're splitting I'm moving back to my family, he is moving nearer his work, and the reality is that he'll see them 2-4 days per month.

He is requesting joint residency, but I'm wondering if that's appropriate given our situation. I've no problem with allowing him as much contact as he needs (within reason - weekends, time in school hols etc) but he's never been a particularly involved parent, and I can't see this changing. I would welcome any advice on this.

With the amount of time he has spent with the children in the past, his limited involvement in their upbringing, the fact he has moved further away and currently sees his DC's for so little time, it would be unlikely a judge would support an application for joint residency at this time.
He needs to sort is priorties out imo.

When I went through this my lawyers told me that joint residency means exactly what it says. The children spend literally half the time living with you and half the time living with the other parent. My issues were and would still be:

whether each parent can provide equally?

personally, I think two home bases for the children is disorienting and ungrounded. I would prefer one home base and plenty of contact (including overnight if possible) with the other parent.

Nope joint residency does not mean 50:50 your lawyer was incorrect.

my ex initially spoke about wanting joint residency, then agreed to me having sole residency with loads of contact for him, in the end they see him every few months.

Why do you say that Elenor? He made a clear distinction between residency and parental responsibility.

Because its true, your lawyer was incorrect.

DP has joint residency for his daughter, it is not 50:50.

Elenor, that makes sense from what I've read so far.

H seems to think having joint residency will give him greater legal say over what happens with the dc's, and is therefore fairer for him, but I don't know what the difference is between his rights as a parent with contact, and a jointly resident parent. I don't wish to be unreasonable, but given that I've always done 90% parenting and childcare, it doesn't sound right in our circumstances..

Unfortunately his priorities are work and OW, not sure in which order!!

Shared residence doesn't mean the time is shared 50:50 between parents. It is indicated when a child 'lives' with each parent at least a third of time, the homes and schools are in close proximity, there is a history of shared care and the child perceives they have two homes.

However, other factors are considered by courts and SR has been granted when the parents live a distance apart, even in different countries, or to equalise the power between parents when the parent with the majority of care behaves unreasonably. Sometimes a shared residence order is awarded when the care is shared less than 33:67.

The label of shared residence is important to some dads because they feel it better enables them to exercise their parental responsibility such as accessing medical and educational information about their children.

Practically there isn't much difference between SR and the traditional contact/residence arrangement, although when residence is shared 50:50 if one parent wishes to move away a court might decide it is less disruptive to a child's relationships and education to live with the parent remaining in the locality.

When courts determine arrangements they tend to consider the existing parents working and child care patterns. It is generally thought that a child's stability and existing bonds shouldn't be disrupted and when children live with one parent they should know and see the other parent.

Thankyou STIDW - would a shared residency order need to be determined by a court then?

What would the default position be for me (if that makes sense!)? Would I automatically get residence with H having contact unless we make arrangements to stipulate otherwise?

I think the childcare split is going to be more like 85-15 my way.

The courts have a no order principle and will only impose one when it is deemed in the best interests of the child to have an order in place. The default position is both parents have parental responsibility and are seen as equals in the eyes of the law. Most parents come to their own arrangements.

When you divorce a statement of arrangements for the children is completed so the court can ensure that the provision has been made for them. That just states the arrangements at the time of divorce and isn't a binding court order. So you can agree the living and/or contact arrangements including shared residence, but if there is any disagreement in the future the courts look at the reality of the situation then. Shared residence for some is really about status and not being marginalised.

These days a residence order is usually only granted when for one reason or another it isn't possible for the child to 'live' with the other parent. 25% of applications for residence orders result in shared residence.

XH has joint residency of DD - she sees him every other weekend and half the school hols - not 50:50 at all!

Joint residency as far as I am aware is just so that they have a say in the child's life re medical care, education etc.