CA 1989 s. 1 makes child welfare paramount in court decisions, presumes parental involvement, avoids delay, and requires orders to be better than no order.
Official text
·
CA 1989 s. 1 — United Kingdom
When a court determines any question with respect to— the upbringing of a child; or the administration of a child’s property or the application of any income arising from it, the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration. In any proceedings in which any question with respect to the upbringing of a child arises, the court shall have regard to the general principle that any delay in determining the question is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child. A court, in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (4)(a) or (7), is as respects each parent within subsection (6)(a) to presume, unless the contrary is shown, that involvement of that parent in the life of the child concerned will further the child's welfare. In subsection (2A) “ involvement ” means involvement of some kind, either direct or indirect, but not any particular division of a child's time. In the circumstances mentioned in subsection (4), a court shall have regard in particular to— the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned (considered in the light of his age and understanding); his physical, emotional and educational needs; the likely effect on him of any change in his circumstances; his age, sex, background and any characteristics of his which the court considers relevant; any harm which he has suffered or is at risk of suffering; how capable each of his parents, and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting his needs; the range of powers available to the court under this Act in the proceedings in question. The circumstances are that— the court is considering whether to make, vary or discharge a section 8 order, and the making, variation or discharge of the order is opposed by any party to the proceedings; or the court is considering whether to make, vary or discharge a special guardianship order or an order under Part IV. Where a court is considering whether or not to make one or more orders under this Act with respect to a child, it shall not make the order or any of the orders unless it considers that doing so would be better for the child than making no order at all. In subsection (2A) “ parent ” means parent of the child concerned; and, for the purposes of that subsection, a parent of the child concerned— is within this paragraph if that parent can be involved in the child's life in a way that does not put the child at risk of suffering harm; and is to be treated as being within paragraph (a) unless there is some evidence before the court in the particular proceedings to suggest that involvement of that parent in the child's life would put the child at risk of suffering harm whatever the form of the involvement. The circumstances referred to are that the court is considering whether to make an order under section 4(1)(c) or (2A) or 4ZA(1)(c) or (5) (parental responsibility of parent other than mother).
Section 1 contains four separate rules and it is worth keeping them apart. First, the paramountcy principle: when a court determines any question about a child's upbringing, or about the administration of a child's property, the child's welfare "shall be the court's paramount consideration". Paramount means it outranks everything else, including the interests and rights of the parents - a stronger standard than the "first consideration" the Matrimonial Causes Act gives to children in financial cases.
Second, the no-delay principle in subsection (2): the court is to have regard to the general principle that delay in determining a question about upbringing is likely to prejudice the child's welfare. Third, the presumption of parental involvement in subsections (2A) and (6): unless the contrary is shown, involvement of each parent in the child's life is presumed to further the child's welfare - but subsection (2B) defines involvement as "involvement of some kind, either direct or indirect", and expressly not "any particular division of a child's time". The section does not presume equal or shared time.
Fourth, the welfare checklist in subsection (3): the child's ascertainable wishes and feelings considered in the light of age and understanding; physical, emotional and educational needs; the likely effect of any change in circumstances; age, sex, background and relevant characteristics; any harm suffered or at risk of being suffered; how capable each parent and any other relevant person is of meeting the child's needs; and the range of powers available to the court. Subsection (4) confines the checklist to contested section 8 applications and to special guardianship and Part IV proceedings. Finally, subsection (5) is the no-order principle: the court shall not make an order unless doing so would be better for the child than making no order at all.
When it applies
A contested application about where a child lives or who they spend time with.
A parent arguing for equal shared time and relying on the involvement presumption.
Care proceedings brought by a local authority.
An older child whose own views are being put to the court.
Parents who have reached agreement and are asking whether an order is needed at all.
A case where one parent's allegations of harm are said to displace the presumption.
What this section does not say
×It does not presume equal time. Subsection (2B) defines involvement as involvement of some kind, direct or indirect, and expressly not any particular division of the child's time.
×It is not a list of parents' rights. The child's welfare is paramount, and the section does not give either parent a right to contact or to a share of time.
×The checklist does not apply to every application. Subsection (4) confines it to contested section 8 applications and to special guardianship and Part IV proceedings.
×It does not decide anything by itself. It is the framework the court applies when exercising the powers in sections 8, 14A, 31 and elsewhere.
×The presumption of involvement is not absolute. It applies only where the parent can be involved without putting the child at risk of harm.
Worked examples
Invented situations, written to show how the wording bites. They are not real cases, not judgments and not precedent, and nothing here predicts what would happen in yours.
Illustrative example
Separated parents are arguing about the week. One says the law starts from equal shared time and proposes alternate weeks; the other thinks the school-week disruption would unsettle their daughter.
How the wording applies
The presumption of parental involvement in subsections (2A) and (6) is the provision being relied on, and subsection (2B) defines what it means: involvement of some kind, direct or indirect, and expressly not 'any particular division of a child's time'. So the section does not start from equality. The fact everything is measured against instead is the child's welfare, which subsection (1) makes the paramount consideration - outranking both parents' positions rather than balancing them.
How the parties settled it
They agree school nights stay in one home during term, with alternate weekends from Friday after school, half of each holiday, and a review each August before the new school year.
Illustrative example
Two parents have worked out arrangements between themselves and are getting on reasonably well, but one wants it all written into a court order in case things change.
How the wording applies
Subsection (5) is the no-order principle: the court is not to make an order unless doing so would be better for the child than making no order at all. Subsection (2) adds that delay is likely to prejudice the child's welfare. The fact that decides whether an order helps is whether the arrangement is actually working - an order sought as insurance against a hypothetical future is the situation subsection (5) is aimed at.
How the parties settled it
They write the arrangements into a signed parenting plan with a named mediator to return to if it breaks down, and agree to apply to court only if the plan fails twice in a term.
Illustrative example
A twelve-year-old has told both parents clearly that they want to spend more time at one house. One parent says a child that age decides for themselves; the other says children do not choose.
How the wording applies
The welfare checklist in subsection (3) opens with the child's ascertainable wishes and feelings 'considered in the light of his age and understanding' - so views are a listed factor whose weight rises with maturity, not a decision. Subsection (4) matters too: the checklist applies to contested section 8 applications and to Part IV proceedings, not to every discussion. The fact that gives the child's view its weight is understanding rather than a birthday.
How the parties settled it
They agree to a trial term on the pattern their child asked for, with both parents keeping the arrangement under review and neither treating the trial as a permanent change until it has run.
The same problem elsewhere
The other legal systems in this collection answer the same everyday problem with their own provisions.
The comparison and these one-line summaries are in English.
Separated parents who cannot agree where the children live: what the law says in six jurisdictions
Say what is happening. A neutral mediator hears your side and the other party's, and walks you both to a written agreement. In the advanced settings you can ask for the decision to be reasoned on the Acts of Parliament that apply in England and Wales.
We copy this text from the official publisher and re-check it against that source on every page load, but we cannot guarantee it is complete, current or free of error, and we accept no liability for any reliance on it. An amendment can take effect before a consolidation catches up. The publisher's own copy is linked below; where the two differ, it is the official one that counts.
This page reproduces the text of CA 1989 s. 1 in force at the date shown and explains it in general terms. It is not legal advice and takes no account of the circumstances of your case, which can change the answer completely. For a live dispute, for limitation periods, and before taking any step in court, consult a qualified lawyer in England and Wales.