What is 50/50 Shared Custody?

50/50 shared custody (more accurately called equal shared care) means a child lives with each parent for roughly half the time, but there is no legal right or presumption in favour of this in England and Wales. Courts and arbitrators only endorse equal time where it best serves that individual child’s welfare, applying the Children Act 1989 welfare checklist and considering practical realities like distance between homes, each parent’s ability to meet day‑to‑day needs, and the child’s wishes and feelings. Many families run shared care informally without any order, usually supported by a detailed parenting plan, while court proceedings, are reserved for situations where agreement breaks down or safety and welfare concerns arise.

Two children happily settled in a shared care arrangement — 50/50 custody advice from Purcell Solicitors

Last reviewed – 11 th June 2026

Article Summary

  • ✓50/50 shared custody, known in family law as equal shared care (as custody is not a legal term used in England and Wales), means a child spends equal time living with each parent. There is no legal presumption that this is the right outcome; a court will only order this arrangement where the welfare of that specific child makes it appropriate. Shared care orders can involve a different division of time but the children are still said to live with both parents as per those arrangements, rather than live with one and spend time with the other.
  • ✓The decisions as to disputed arrangements for children in England and Wales are governed by the welfare principle in section 1 of the Children Act 1989. The welfare checklist in section 1(3) sets out the factors the court must consider, including the child’s wishes and feelings, and each parent’s capacity to meet the child’s needs.
  • ✓Shared care orders are no longer treated as exceptional in principle, but each case is fact specific and unique as to whether this is appropriate.
  • ✓Parents who agree arrangements between themselves, supported by a detailed parenting plan, are well placed to make shared care work. Where agreement proves impossible, specialist family law advice from Purcell Solicitors’ child law team is the sensible next step.

 

Courts in England and Wales do not treat equal time as a starting point or a parental right; the only question they ask is what arrangement best serves the welfare of the individual child before them.

The term ‘custody’ was removed from English law by the Children Act 1989, which replaced it with child arrangements orders dealing with where a child lives and how much time they spend with each parent. When parents talk about shared custody, they are describing what practitioners call a shared care arrangement: a schedule in which neither parent is reduced to a visiting role but rather the children live with both parents. What that looks like in practice varies considerably from one family to the next.

Understanding what the court actually weighs up in considering any dispute between parents as to child arrangements helps parents approach negotiations with realistic expectations. A schedule that works well for one family may be entirely unsuitable for another. The child, not the timetable or what the parents want for themselves, is what the law is concerned with.

Shared care in English law

Every decision about where a child lives is governed by section 1 of the Children Act 1989. The Act’s paramount principle is that the child’s welfare is the court’s first and overriding consideration. No other factor, including the parents’ wishes or any sense of fairness between them, can displace it.

Section 1(3) contains the welfare checklist: seven factors the court must consider in contested applications. These are the child’s ascertainable wishes and feelings in light of their age and understanding; their physical, emotional and educational needs; the likely effect of any change in circumstances; their age, sex, background and relevant characteristics; any harm they have suffered or are at risk of suffering; how capable each parent is of meeting their needs; and the range of powers available to the court.

Section 1(2A), inserted by the Children and Families Act 2014, introduced a presumption that the involvement of each parent in a child’s life furthers the child’s welfare. Section 1(2B) makes clear that ‘involvement’ means involvement of some kind, whether direct or indirect, and carries no implication of any particular division of a child’s time. The presumption was never a mandate for 50/50 time. In October 2025, the Government announced it intends to repeal even this limited presumption, following evidence that it had been applied inconsistently and had, in some cases, contributed to unsafe contact decisions in cases involving domestic abuse. Any decision will remain firmly based on what is in the child’s best interests- agreed by the parents or determined by a Court or a qualified Arbitrator in the event of a dispute.

Section 1(5) requires the court to make no order unless making an order is better for the child than making no order at all. Where parents have agreed workable arrangements, there is rarely a need for an Order.

What the Courts Have Said About Shared Care

The case law on shared residence has moved significantly over the past two decades. The position shifted from one in which equal-time orders were regarded as exceptional to one in which they are a recognised part of the court’s toolkit and shared care orders, including other arrangements for the division of time save purely equal, are increasingly common.

Re G (Children) [2005] EWCA Civ 462

In Re G (Children) [2005] EWCA Civ 462, the Court of Appeal granted a shared residence order to a same-sex co-parent who had no biological ties to the children. The order served two purposes: it conferred parental responsibility on the non-biological parent and recognised that both women had served as parents throughout the children’s lives.

The judgment clarified that shared care orders no longer require exceptional circumstances (or that the arrangements would be equal). A reasonable working relationship between the adults is helpful, but the court confirmed it is not an absolute precondition. The order can be made even where there is some hostility, provided that making it serves the child’s welfare. What weighed heavily with the court was the need to protect the children’s relationship with both parents against one parent’s efforts to marginalise the other.

Re A and B (Parental Alienation: No. 1) [2020] EWHC 3366 (Fam)

In Re A and B (Parental Alienation: No. 1) [2020] EWHC 3366 (Fam), the parents had agreed to and operated a 50/50 shared care order for two children, then aged fourteen and eleven. Over several years, and despite a fifteen-month programme of professional therapeutic input, the mother’s behaviour progressively alienated both children from their father.

Mr Justice Keehan found that the shared care arrangement had broken down beyond repair. Expert psychological evidence established significant emotional and psychological harm to both children. The court concluded that nothing short of a full transfer of residence to the father, with initially very restricted contact to the mother, could meet their welfare needs. The judgment is a direct illustration of the point that shared time is a means, not an end: once an arrangement causes harm to the children rather than preventing it, the court can abandon it.

When Courts Will Consider Equal Time In Terms Of Shared Custody

We make sure to tell clients that no single factor determines whether a court will endorse an equalschedule, but several conditions make it appreciably more likely. Where these are absent, the court will generally prefer a different arrangement even if one or both parents strongly favour equal time.

Geography matters in a concrete, day-to-day sense. Children need to sleep adequately, attend school reliably and sustain friendships without long daily journeys. Where parents live close enough that moving between homes adds nothing material to the child’s routine, equal shared care becomes far more practicable. Distance is not an absolute bar; courts have made shared residence orders where parents live in different regions but whether that is equal time or another arrangement will depend on the facts of the specific case. The cost to the child of regular long-distance travel must, however, be weighed carefully.

Both parents must be practically and emotionally able to meet the child’s day-to-day needs: suitable accommodation with space for the child, capacity to manage school requirements, medical appointments and activities, and the emotional availability to provide consistent care. Where one household is significantly less able to support those needs, equal time creates an avoidable disparity in the child’s experience.

The level of parental cooperation matters, though it is not an absolute requirement. In Re R (Children) [2005] EWCA Civ 542, the Court of Appeal confirmed that harmony between parents is not a precondition for a shared residence order, and noted that parents who cooperate well may not need a court order at all. The court examines whether the child will be exposed to conflict, loyalty pressures, or instability as a direct result of the arrangement.

The child’s own wishes and feelings are given increasing weight as they grow older. An older child,such as a mature teenager, who actively objects to moving between two homes every few days will not ordinarily be placed in anarrangement against their will. CAFCASS officers and independent social workers are skilled at representing younger children’s interests in a way the court can engage with directly.

Practical Implications for Parents

In my experience, parents who want to try shared care without going to court are well placed to design an arrangement that fits their child’s life. Agreeing informally is common and entirely possible, but a written parenting plan considerably reduces the risk of misunderstanding. A good plan sets out the regular schedule in detail: which parent has the child on which days, how handovers work, how school runs are managed, what happens during school holidays, and how birthdays and bank holidays are split.

A parenting plan should also address how decisions get made. Shared care does not mean every decision requires joint agreement. Parents with parental responsibility are expected to consult one another on significant matters, such as schooling and medical treatment, but each parent makes day-to-day choices during their own time with the child. Setting out which matters require joint agreement prevents minor scheduling questions from becoming proxies for a much deeper dispute about control.

Before making a court application, most applicants must first attend a Mediation Information and Assessment Meeting (MIAM). The requirement to consider non-court dispute resolution is set out in the Family Procedure Rules, and exemptions apply only in specific circumstances, including where there is evidence of domestic abuse. A MIAM gives parents the chance to explore whether mediation or another process can resolve the matter without litigation.

Whilst decisions concerning arrangements for children should be driven by the child’s welfare and not financial matters, several financial consequences can flow from a 50/50 schedule. Child maintenance under the Child Maintenance Service formula is subject to an reduction where a child spends overnights with the other parent (with the reduction increasing depending on the nights spent) and if care is genuinely exactly equal the Child Maintenance Services may refuse an application as it can be said said there is no non-resident parent for the CMS to make an assessment against.

Child benefit can be paid to only one parent, regardless of the arrangements for the child’s care, so parents need to agree who will claim this if there is a shared care arrangement. Universal Credit child elements follow the main caring responsibility, typically linked to the child benefit claimant.

Where agreement proves impossible, either parent can apply to the Family Court using Form C100 for a child arrangements order. In some cases the court may direct a CAFCASS report and, in more complex cases may commission further independent expert evidence. The welfare checklist in section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989 will be applied afresh to the facts at the time of the hearing.

Court proceedings should be the last resort and consideration of all forms of non-court dispute resolution (including but not limited to mediation) should be had. The focus is, where safe to do so, parents should be able to agree the arrangements for their children as they best placed to do so than an overworked, and over overwhelmed family justice system and there a number of alternatives to Court to assist parents who are in dispute which may be better suited to resolve the dispute.

This article provides general legal information about shared care arrangements in England and Wales. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as a substitute for advice tailored to your specific circumstances. If you are dealing with questions about child arrangements, contact Purcell Solicitors for expert, confidential guidance.

 

Frequently Asked Questions

Is there a legal presumption of 50/50 shared care in England and Wales?

No, the law has never presumed equal time. The Children and Families Act 2014 introduced a presumption that parental involvement of both parents furthers a child’s welfare, but section 1(2B) of the Children Act 1989 expressly states that this does not imply any particular division of time. The Government announced in October 2025 that even this limited presumption is to be repealed. The court’s starting point is and remains the welfare of the individual child, assessed against the welfare checklist.

Do parents need a court order to operate a 50/50 or other shared care arrangement?

No, parents can agree and operate a shared care schedule without any court involvement, and most separated parents do exactly that. A written parenting plan is strongly advisable as a record of what has been agreed, covering the regular schedule, handovers, holidays and decision-making. If parents later want the arrangement formalised, or one parent seeks to change it, they can apply to the Family Court for a child arrangements order, and can use the written agreement as evidence of intentions at that time.

What happens to child maintenance if care is split exactly equally?

The Court has very limited circumstances in which it can deal with child maintenance as this is primarily the remit of the child maintenance services (“CMS”) If there is exactly equal care the Child Maintenance Services may refuse an assessment on the basis that there is no “non resident parent” to make an assessment against.

Can a court impose 50/50 care if one parent disagrees?

Yes, a court can order a shared care arangement against the wishes of one parent if the welfare evidence supports that it would be better for the children than an alternative. Conditions and directions can be attached to any child arrangements order to make the arrangement as workable as circumstances allow.

What should I do if I want to change an existing shared care arrangement?

Where circumstances have changed since a child arrangements order was made, either parent can apply to the Family Court to vary or discharge the order. Before making that application, they will need to attend a MIAM unless a relevant exemption applies. The court will apply the welfare checklist afresh to the current facts; the existing arrangement carries no special presumption in its favour. Anyone considering a variation should take specialist advice at the earliest opportunity from Purcell Solicitors’ child law team, as the approach adopted at the outset can significantly affect the outcome.