The term “full custody” has had no real legal basis since before the introduction of the Children Act 1989. Over the years, the relevant terminology has gone from “residence” and “contact”, to being encompassed under one heading, namely “child arrangements”. Nevertheless, all these terms are still used interchangeably, both by the media and the general public.

Child Arrangements Orders can be subdivided into how the children share their time with each parent (contact), and which parent the child should live with (residence). There are other applications relating to specific issues and prohibited steps; however, this article focuses on the grounds for a child arrangements application “lived with” order.

Legal framework for full custody (“lived with” order)

When a court in England or Wales decides whether a child should live with one parent alone, the decision is grounded in the Children Act 1989. The Act makes the welfare of the child the court’s paramount consideration. To guide judges, it provides the welfare checklist, a set of factors which must be weighed in every case. Against this framework, various circumstances can justify placing a child exclusively in the care of one parent.

How do I get the court to order what I want?

The court will only make an order if it believes it is necessary to protect the child’s wellbeing and welfare. A great place to start is to look at the welfare checklist (Section 1 of the Children Act 1989) which sets out the criteria the court will take into consideration when making its decision. This includes:

  • The ascertainable wishes and feeling of the child concerned (in light of their age and understanding)
  • Physical, emotional, and educational needs
  • Likely effect of any change in the child’s circumstances
  • The child’s age, sex, background, and any characteristics the court considers relevant
  • Any harm the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering
  • How capable each parent is and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant is of meeting the child’s needs
  • The range of powers available to the court

Every point you need to raise with the court should apply to at least one, if not more, of the above criteria. It is important to be child-focussed and forward looking at all times, rather than revisiting old hurts or denigrating the child’s other parent. The court wants to understand that your proposals are realistic, as opposed to using proceedings as an arena to air grievances that have no bearing on the best interests of your child.

What grounds are likely to persuade the court to order my child to live with me?

The court’s preference, and indeed starting point, is that a child should have a relationship with both parents. However, some situations may justify the child living with one parent in particular. Here is our non-exhaustive list of the most common scenarios:

  • Parental unfitness: if a parent is struggling with issues surrounding addiction, severe mental health problems, or they display little interest or capability to provide sufficient care for a child, they may be deemed a risk.
  • Record of neglect or abuse: if a parent has a history of child neglect, abuse, or domestic violence, the courts are more likely to grant a live with order for one parent in order to protect the child’s welfare and safety.
  • Conviction or criminal background: if a parent’s criminal past involves violent or other damaging actions, the other parent could obtain a live with order.
  • Inability to provide for the child’s needs: in situations where one parent is unable to meet the child’s basic needs, such as ensuring they attend school, receive specific medical care, food or shelter, it may affect their ability to care for the child on a day to day basis.
  • Intention to relocate: if one parent plans to move a considerable distance away, the court could make a live with order to the parent staying within the child’s habitual residence in order to maintain stability.
  • Parental alienation: where a parent intentionally influences the child to reject the other parent, it could be seen as a valid reason for the other parent to secure a child arrangements live with order. This is very difficult to prove and is rare in practice.
  • Child’s preference: based on the child’s age and understanding, the court might consider the child’s choice. However, this will be viewed in light of any influence by one parent against the other.

Each situation is unique, and the court will assess the specific circumstances before deciding where the child should live and how their time is divided with the non-resident parent.

How do I prove my ex is unfit to have our child living with them?

One of the most decisive grounds is the presence of harm or the risk of harm. If a child has suffered neglect, abuse, or exposure to domestic violence in one household, the court will often conclude that only by living with the other parent can the child be adequately protected. This applies to both physical and emotional abuse, and the court considers evidence of actual harm as well as credible risk. For instance, a parent who exposes a child to unsafe situations or has a documented history of violence may be deemed incapable of providing safe daily care. In these circumstances, the court may order contact for the other parent, but often with supervision or under strict conditions.

If you believe your ex cannot, or will not, provide your child with safety and comfort, you will need to provide evidence to the court to back up your allegations. This could be achieved by proving the following:

  • A history of drug or alcohol abuse (use of drug/alcohol testing)
  • A history of domestic abuse; either physical or emotional (your GP or medical records would assist here)
  • A history of mental illness that incapacitates the parent to care for the children adequately
  • An inability to understand the needs of the children, including the need for food, clothing and education (previous social services involvement could provide records)
  • History of criminal offences and/or imprisonment

Judges are often reluctant to change where the children live, which is why strong and unbiased evidence must be provided when making any statements or allegations in court. Evidence that will strengthen your case includes photographs, videos or other media demonstrating domestic abuse or substance abuse when the children are present, text messages, voicemails, and social media messages or posts can also help prove certain behaviour.

In addition, if others have witnessed a particular incident or behaviour, you may also be able to introduce witness statements. Even if no one has seen the full extent of someone’s conduct, you can paint a clear picture to the court with multiple witness statements describing similar actions and attitudes.

It is important to note that there are some factors that are rarely sufficient to secure full custody on their own. Courts do not tend to grant sole residence simply because of minor disagreements over parenting style, differences in financial means, or working hours, unless these factors directly affect the child’s welfare. Custody is not awarded on the basis of one parent being “better,” but on what arrangement best serves the child’s overall needs and protection.

Parental capability and stability

Even in the absence of deliberate harm, a parent may lack the capacity to meet the child’s physical, emotional, or educational needs. The court examines whether each parent can provide stability, nurture, and practical care. Factors such as mental health problems, unmanaged addiction, or lifestyle instability can compromise a parent’s ability to meet a child’s needs. Evidence from medical professionals, social services, and schools can be critical in demonstrating these limitations. In some cases, even a loving parent may not be granted full custody if they cannot provide a safe and consistent environment.

Criminal convictions and imprisonment

Criminal convictions or imprisonment can strongly influence court decisions. A parent serving a long prison sentence cannot exercise daily care, and even shorter sentences may disrupt a child’s life sufficiently to warrant residence with the other parent. Convictions for violent or sexual offences carry particular weight, and the court may entirely restrict unsupervised contact in such cases.

Interference and parental alienation

Courts are increasingly alert to situations where one parent deliberately undermines the child’s relationship with the other parent. Parental alienation, which includes blocking communication or manipulating the child’s feelings, can be damaging and influence court decisions. If a judge decides that such interference is harming the child, they may award sole residence to the other parent. The court’s focus is always on protecting the child’s welfare and ensuring that healthy parental relationships are maintained where possible.

Considering the child’s wishes

Children’s preferences are also considered, although the weight given depends on their age and maturity. Younger children’s views carry limited weight, but older children and teenagers may influence the decision if their wishes are consistent and informed. Courts often rely on CAFCASS officers to assess the child’s views, ensuring that the preferences expressed are genuine and not manipulated by a parent.

Importance of continuity and routine

Stability and continuity are central to custody decisions. Judges are reluctant to disrupt a child’s settled life unless there is a compelling reason to do so. If a child is thriving at school, embedded in their community, and secure in a parent’s care, the court will usually aim to preserve that situation. Conversely, if one parent’s lifestyle involves frequent moves, school changes, or relocation abroad, the need for continuity may justify granting full custody to the other parent. The principle is to minimise disruption while promoting the child’s welfare.

Age, background, and special needs

The child’s personal characteristics can also influence court decisions. Cultural, religious, or linguistic continuity may be important, particularly for younger children. A child with special educational or medical needs, for example, may need to live with the parent best equipped to provide necessary support, whilst very young children may benefit from remaining with their primary caregiver. Siblings are usually kept together where possible to maintain emotional stability.

Evaluating change and its impact

The court must also consider the likely effect of any change in circumstances. Moving schools, leaving behind friends, or breaking routines can all have a negative impact. If granting full custody to one parent minimises these disruptions, it may tip the balance in their favour. Conversely, if a parent’s circumstances have deteriorated and the child’s current environment is unstable, the court may intervene to secure residence with the more capable parent.

Can I get full custody without going to court?

There may be circumstances that mean it is best for one parent to have the child live with them instead of the other parent. Potentially, such an arrangement can be made amicably between the parties, either via agreement, or with the assistance of mediation.

If the child’s other parent agrees the child should live with you, in line with the “no order” principle, you do not need a child arrangements order or to attend court.

Associated orders

Even when full custody is granted, courts often impose additional measures to safeguard the child. Prohibited steps orders may prevent the other parent from making significant decisions without permission, such as relocating the child abroad or changing schools. Contact may be limited to supervised visits or indirect means, including letters or video calls. Interim or emergency orders can provide temporary protection while a full hearing is conducted.