Whose interests truly support a shared residence decision?

In England and Wales decisions affecting children in the context of parental separation or divorce are guided by the welfare principle, which holds that the child’s welfare must be the court’s paramount consideration. Yet, determining what constitutes a child’s welfare is often far from straightforward. During the emotionally charged process of relationship breakdown, parents may find it difficult to separate their own desires, grievances, or needs from those of their children. Such emotional turmoil is likely to affect the parents’ decisions, positions, their arguments and agreements in a variety of areas, such as the living arrangements.
This article examines how arguments concerning shared residence arrangements are presented to, and interpreted by, the courts. It explores the extent to which judicial reasoning and parental advocacy in favour of shared residence genuinely reflect a commitment to the best interests of the child, or whether they are shaped by the parents’ pursuit of equality, control, or validation within the post-separation family structure. By analysing case law, judicial statements, and academic writings, this work analyses whether a shared residence practice emerges primarily from an evidence-based assessment of children’s welfare, or whether they are influenced by social and legal trends that prioritise parental rights and symbolic recognition.