A Child Arrangements Order (CAO) is designed to provide stability and clarity for children and parents following separation. It sets out key practical arrangements, including where a child will live and how much time they spend with each parent or other family members. However, family life rarely remains static, and as children grow, parents’ circumstances evolve, or unexpected events occur, the arrangements that once worked well may become impractical or no longer serve a child’s best interests.

For that reason, the family court system recognises that child arrangements orders may need to be revisited. A parent can apply to vary a CAO if there has been a “material change in circumstances.” But what exactly does that mean, and how easy is it to persuade a court that a change is significant enough to justify altering an existing order?

Can a child arrangements order be reconsidered?

A CAO can be reconsidered and changed, although the courts generally prefer stability for children and do not encourage repeated litigation unless there is a good reason to revisit the arrangements.

When a CAO has been made, the assumption is that the order reflected the child’s welfare at the time it was decided. A parent seeking to vary the order must therefore show that circumstances have changed sufficiently since the order was made. Without such a change, the court is unlikely to reopen the issue simply because one parent has had a change of heart or believes a different arrangement would be better.

That does not mean variations are rare. In practice, applications to vary child arrangement orders are relatively common, particularly where orders were made when children were younger or where parents’ circumstances have evolved significantly.

The key question the court will ask is whether there has been a material change in circumstances since the original order was made.

What does “material change in circumstances” mean?

There is no strict statutory definition of what counts as a material change in circumstances. Instead, the concept has developed through case law and the general principles of family law.

In simple terms, a material change is one that is significant enough to potentially affect the child’s welfare or the practicality of the existing arrangements. Minor inconveniences or disagreements between parents will not usually meet this threshold.

When considering whether a change is material, the court will look at the case as a whole and decide whether the existing order still serves the child’s best interests.

Examples of changes that may be considered material include:

  • A parent relocating: When a parent moves, particularly if the move is a substantial distance away, the existing contact schedule may become unrealistic. Long-distance travel can affect schooling, routines, and the child’s ability to maintain regular relationships with both parents.
  • Changes in a child’s needs or wishes: As children grow older, their needs, preferences, and daily commitments often change. A schedule that worked when a child was four may no longer suit a teenager balancing school, friendships, and extracurricular activities. The court may consider whether the child’s changing circumstances justify revisiting the order.
  • Concerns about a child’s welfare: If new safeguarding concerns arise, such as allegations of domestic abuse, substance misuse, or neglect, the court may view this as a material change requiring reassessment of arrangements.
  • Changes in a parent’s circumstances: A parent’s employment, housing, or health situation may change significantly after an order is made. For example, if a parent previously worked irregular hours but now has a more stable routine, they may seek greater involvement in the child’s day-to-day life.
  • Breakdown of practical arrangements: Sometimes an order becomes unworkable because parents cannot cooperate or because the practical logistics no longer function. Persistent conflict around handovers, schooling, or communication may prompt a review of the arrangements.

What would not usually count as a material change?

Not every change will justify court intervention, and the courts are generally reluctant to vary orders where the underlying circumstances remain largely the same.

Examples of situations that may not meet the threshold include:

  • One parent believing the order is unfair
  • Minor disagreements about parenting styles
  • Small scheduling inconveniences
  • Attempts to re-litigate issues already decided by the court

If the original order was made after a full hearing, the court may be particularly cautious about reopening the case without compelling reasons.

What if the change was foreseeable at the time of the order?

Sometimes one parent may argue that the alleged change in circumstances was foreseeable when the original order was made. This can complicate the issue.

For instance, if a parent planned to relocate for work and this possibility was known during the earlier proceedings, the court may question whether the move truly represents a new development.

However, foreseeability does not automatically prevent variation. The court will consider whether the actual impact of the change is materially different from what was anticipated. A planned move that turns out to have greater consequences than expected could still justify revisiting the order.

Who decides whether the change is material?

The decision is ultimately made by the family court, where judges or magistrates consider the evidence presented by both parents and assess whether there has been a sufficiently significant change since the order was made.

The court’s primary consideration will always be the child’s welfare. This principle is reflected in the welfare checklist contained in the Children Act 1989, which includes factors such as:

  • The child’s wishes and feelings (depending on age and maturity)
  • Their emotional, educational, and physical needs
  • The likely effect of any change in circumstances
  • The ability of each parent to meet the child’s needs

In many cases, the court will also involve the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS). A CAFCASS officer may prepare a report providing an independent assessment of the child’s situation and recommendations about the proposed variation.

How does a parent apply to vary a child arrangements order?

A parent who wishes to change a CAO typically begins by attempting mediation. Family law procedures generally require parties to attend a Mediation Information and Assessment Meeting (MIAM) before making a court application, unless an exemption applies (for example, in cases involving domestic abuse).

If mediation does not resolve the issue, the parent can apply to the court using Form C100. This application asks the court to vary the existing child arrangements order.

Once the application is submitted, the court will usually list the matter for a First Hearing Dispute Resolution Appointment (FHDRA). At this hearing, the judge will explore whether agreement can be reached and determine what further steps may be required.

Depending on the circumstances, the court may order:

  • A CAFCASS report
  • Statements from the parents
  • Additional evidence
  • A fact-finding hearing if allegations are disputed

If the case cannot be resolved by agreement, the matter may proceed to a final hearing where the judge decides whether the order should be varied.

Evidence will depend on the nature of the change being relied upon and the case before the court. Examples may include:

  • School reports or attendance records
  • Medical or psychological assessments
  • Evidence of relocation, such as tenancy agreements
  • Employment contracts showing changes in working patterns
  • Communications showing difficulties with existing arrangements
  • Witness statements

The court will consider both documentary evidence and witness statements when assessing the case.

Does the age of the order matter?

The length of time since the order was made can sometimes influence how the court approaches a variation application.

If a child arrangements order was made very recently, the court may expect stronger evidence of change before revisiting the arrangements. Courts aim to avoid repeated litigation within short periods.

However, if several years have passed, the court may be more open to reviewing the arrangements. Children’s lives change rapidly, and orders made during early childhood may need adjustment as they grow older.

That said, the age of the order is only one factor. The decisive issue remains whether the current arrangements continue to promote the child’s welfare.