Where both parents have remained closely involved in their children’s everyday life over several years following separation, a suggestion that it should change can feel extremely unfair. But an arrangement that suited a young child may become more difficult as school commitments increase, while tensions between parents can gradually turn ordinary handovers into events the child dreads.
There are also cases where equal care continues because neither adult feels able to suggest anything different, even though the child is struggling.
Equal care is an arrangement, rather than a permanent entitlement
There is no automatic legal right for a parent to have 50% of a child’s time, and while equal care may work well for one family, the court must assess its suitability for each individual child.
For some children, moving regularly between two familiar homes feels entirely natural; but other children find the same pattern exhausting, particularly when moving home also means navigating arguments or worrying about how each parent will react to something said about the other household.
Informal agreements and court orders have different consequences
An informal parenting agreement might have developed through conversations after separation, perhaps supported by a written parenting plan. Although it can provide a valuable structure, it is not enforceable in the same way as a child arrangements order (CAO).
Parents can agree to revise an informal arrangement as their circumstances change, and if they cannot agree, either may need to ask the court to determine the arrangements.
A CAO has a different legal status, and although parents may mutually agree to do something different, their private agreement does not formally rewrite or change the order. It is possible for the agreed changes to be submitted to the court for approval through a consent order, but where agreement is impossible, an application can be made to vary the existing order.
Reasons an established arrangement may need to change
A request to move away from equal care should explain what is happening for the child and how the proposed arrangement would help them. For example, a child starting high school may find that travelling from one parent’s home leaves them exhausted before lessons begin. The issue here is the practical effect on the child, rather than the move itself.
Frequent moves between homes could be particularly difficult for a child who depends on predictable routines, even where the care from both parents is excellent. While such a scenario doesn’t rule out equal care, it may justify looking at whether a different pattern offers greater stability.
Parental conflict can also be problematic, and although a disagreement about a forgotten school jumper may seem minor when viewed in isolation, repeated confrontations can leave a child anticipating trouble every time they change homes. Before proposing a substantial reduction in time, parents should consider whether school-based handovers or clearer communication arrangements would address the problem.
The significance of the case of Re IAD and BNA
In the case of Re IAD and BNA (Children) (Appeal Against Child Arrangements Order) [2026] EWFC 259 (B), the court considered an application for permission to appeal following a change to an approximately six-year shared-care arrangement, which had operated largely by informal agreement.
The children were two primary-school-aged brothers, one with considerable additional needs. Professional evidence identified entrenched parental conflict and its emotional impact on the children. The new order provided for five days with the father and nine with the mother each fortnight during term time, while holidays remained equally divided.
The judge rejected the appeal that equal care had to continue unless parental misconduct had been established. The order still provided that the children would live with both parents, despite the unequal amount of time. The case shows that changing the division of time does not necessarily end a shared lives with arrangement, and that capable parenting does not make an existing 50/50 pattern safe from reconsideration.
One parent cannot treat a court order as optional
A parent who believes equal care is no longer working should seek agreement with the other parent or make a court application, rather than expecting a new timetable will change the legal position. Where a CAO is breached, the other parent may apply for enforcement, although the court will look at the circumstances of the breach and their explanation for non-compliance. If a child may be at risk of harm, a parent should obtain advice about whether an urgent court application is necessary.
The outcome may involve substantially unequal time
A court considering disputed arrangements will examine the child’s needs and the ability of each parent to meet them. It must also consider harm and the likely consequences of changing the child’s circumstances. An established routine can give a child a valuable sense of security, particularly where they are familiar with spending time in both homes and know what to expect each week.
However, the fact that an arrangement has continued for several years does not, by itself, mean that it should remain unchanged. As children grow older, their needs may alter, and difficulties that were once manageable may begin to affect their wellbeing. The court will consider how the arrangement is working for the child now, while weighing the potential benefits of a different approach against the disruption that changing a familiar routine could cause.
The possibility of spending less time with a child can be very upsetting for a parent, particularly if equal care has been the routine for years. Those feelings are understandable, but focusing too closely on the number of days can make it harder to see what works well for the child and what needs to change. The aim should be to find an arrangement that supports a close relationship with both parents while meeting the child’s needs as they grow older.
The value of equal care arguably lies in how well it serves the child. When that changes, parents need to be able to reconsider the arrangement without treating every adjustment as a judgment on who matters most in their child’s life.