J and K (Children: Private Law)

In prolonged private-law disputes concerning children, the court should address the causes and harmful effects of entrenched conflict and promote arrangements that enable parents to work constructively together. A coercive or punitive order should not be made merely to reinforce contact provisions where, in the circumstances revealed at the hearing, it would be inappropriate or harmful. Where parents reach a durable consensus that serves the children’s welfare, the court may approve a final shared residence arrangement and leave practical details to the parents.

This was a private-law dispute concerning twelve-year-old twins. The parents had been involved in more than ten years of litigation about parental responsibility, contact, handovers, names and the father’s role in the children’s lives. The hearing considered the causes of the persistent difficulties, future contact and residence arrangements, and whether further coercive orders were required.

During the hearing, oral evidence and constructive professional assistance led to a substantial improvement in the parents’ attitudes. The parties reached a consensus providing for shared residence, alternating weekends and broadly equal division of school holidays. The central issue was whether that agreement should be approved and supported by further protective orders.

1. Outcome. The court approved the parties’ consensus and made a shared residence order in favour of both parents. Weekends were to alternate between the two homes, and school holidays and half terms were to be divided more or less equally. The practical details were left to the parents.
2. Assessment of prolonged conflict. Protracted litigation concerning children is profoundly harmful. The court should seek to understand the causes of entrenched parental disagreement and its impact on the children, rather than merely impose arrangements without addressing the underlying difficulties.
3. Effect of the hearing. Oral evidence may permit parents to listen to one another, acknowledge their own contribution to past problems and move towards constructive collaboration. The evidence supported the conclusion that there had never been a valid welfare objection to ongoing contact and that several incidents had acquired disproportionate significance.
4. Coercive residence orders. The judge declined to make a suspended transfer of residence order of the kind used in Re M (Children) [2012] EWHC 1948 (Fam) to reinforce the agreed contact arrangements. Given the changed circumstances, such an order would have been inapposite and potentially harmful, particularly if perceived as punitive or oppressive.
5. Finality. The order was intended to be final. The parents were empowered to make the arrangements work, and further litigation would be a profoundly retrograde step.

Not an appeal. The judgment itself records earlier proceedings in the Family Proceedings Court and County Court, but gives no citation for a prior decision.