What Is The Welfare Principle?
The welfare principle means your child’s welfare is the court’s paramount consideration whenever it decides on a matter concerning a child. It comes from section 1 of the Children Act 1989 and applies in England and Wales. The House of Lords confirmed in J v C [1970] AC 668 that the child’s welfare rules over and controls every other consideration.
Last reviewed: 14th October 2026
Article summary
✓ Your child’s welfare is the paramount consideration when a court decides a question about their upbringing or property under the Children Act 1989.
✓ No parent has an automatic advantage; biology and marital status do not create a presumption in either parent’s favour.
✓ The court applies a six-factor welfare checklist in section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989 to test the facts of your family specifically.
✓ The court will not make an order at all unless doing so is better for your child than making no order, so applying to court should rarely be seen as the first step but rather a measure of last resort (in cases of real need)
✓ Delay is treated as harmful to your child by default, so early advice and prompt action can protect your position if a dispute is developing.
In 1925, Parliament first wrote the welfare test into English law through the Guardianship of Infants Act 1925, which directed courts to treat a child’s welfare as the “first and paramount consideration” and expressly rejected any inherent superiority for either parent’s claim. The issue, which was debated heavily in the House of Commons, ended a legal era in which a father’s rights over his children could outweigh a mother’s, regardless of the child’s needs and wishes. The rule crossed almost unchanged into section 1 of the Children Act 1989, which governs every child’s case in England and Wales today.
In my experience, parents in dispute often assume the law favours whoever a child currently lives with. However, this is not the case. In fact, your interests are subordinate to your child’s welfare in matters involving their upbringing and property, and this is sometimes an uncomfortable fact to come to terms with.
What does the welfare principle actually require?
The welfare principle requires a court to treat your child’s welfare as the single overriding factor whenever it decides a question about their upbringing or is asked to resolve a dispute, ahead of any parent’s rights or wishes.
Section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989 states that when a court determines any question about a child’s upbringing, or the administration of a child’s property, “the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration”. The word “paramount” carries specific legal weight: it does not mean welfare is one important factor to be balanced against others; it means welfare governs the outcome once it is engaged.
The principle only applies once a genuine question about a child’s upbringing is before the court. It does not create a general power to intervene in family life, and section 1(5) of the Children Act 1989 separately restrains the court from making an order at all unless doing so is better for your child than making no order.
What is the welfare checklist?
The welfare checklist, set out in section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989, is used by the court to decide what is in the best interests of your child. They are weighed together against your child’s specific circumstances.
The checklist requires the court to consider your child’s ascertainable wishes and feelings, in the light of their age and understanding; their physical, emotional, and educational needs; the likely effect on them of any change in circumstances; their age, sex, background, and any other characteristics the court considers relevant; any harm they have suffered or are at risk of suffering; and each parent’s capacity to meet their needs. No single factor on the list is weighted above the others in every case, so the court’s task is to assess how the specific facts of your family engage each one.
| Welfare checklist factor | What the court looks at | Example of how it applies |
|---|---|---|
| Wishes and feelings | Your child’s views, weighted by age and maturity | A 14 year old’s stated preference carries more weight than a 4 year old’s |
| Physical, emotional, educational needs | Day-to-day care, stability, and schooling | Continuity of school and routine during a dispute |
| Likely effect of change | Disruption caused by a proposed move or new arrangement | Relocating away from an established support network |
| Age, sex, background, characteristics | Individual circumstances relevant to welfare | A child’s cultural or religious upbringing |
| Harm suffered or at risk | Domestic abuse, neglect, or exposure to conflict | Safeguarding concerns mean arrangements need to be carefully considered |
| Parental capacity | Each parent’s ability to meet the child’s needs | Practical care arrangements, housing, and support |
Does delay affect my case?
Yes, delay is treated as harmful to your child by default under the Children Act 1989, so the court manages children’s cases on the basis that time works against your child.
Section 1(2) of the Children Act 1989 requires the court to have regard to the general principle that delay in determining a question about a child’s upbringing is likely to prejudice their welfare. This does not mean every case moves quickly in practice, since the Ministry of Justice recorded a national average of 35 weeks from application to disposal for private law Children Act cases in October to December 2025. It does mean that if you are waiting to see whether a dispute resolves itself, the law’s own starting assumption is that waiting carries a cost for your child, not a neutral one.
Where informal arrangements have already broken down, and further delay is not protecting your child, this principle supports moving toward mediation, non-court dispute resolution outcomes or a court application rather than allowing an unresolved dispute to continue by default.
When will the court decide not to intervene?
The court will decide not to make an order, even where a genuine dispute exists, if it concludes that making no order at all is better for your child than making one.
Section 1(5) of the Children Act 1989 sets out the “no order” principle: the court will not make an order under the Act unless it considers that doing so is better for the child than making no order at all. This reflects a deliberate policy against unnecessary court involvement in family life, and it means an application to court is not always the right step even where you and the other parent disagree. Where you can reach and keep to an informal agreement safely, the welfare principle itself supports resolving matters without a court order, since an order adds a layer of formality your child’s welfare may not actually require. The Court strongly recommends that, where safe, parents should agree arrangements without involving the Court. The President of the Family Division has written a letter to parents who are contemplating using the Court system, and it is recommended reading for all parents who are facing a potential child arrangement dispute.
Talk to Purcell Solicitors
If you are trying to understand how the welfare principle would apply to a dispute involving your child, or you need help deciding whether to apply to court, we can talk you through how the law is likely to approach your situation. Contact us on 01908 693000 to discuss how we can help you.
Further reading:
For more information, please see below.
A Complete Guide To Children’s Law After Separation
What is a child arrangements order?
What is parental responsibility?
Frequently asked questions
Does the welfare principle favour mothers over fathers?
No, the welfare principle contains no presumption favouring either parent. The Supreme Court confirmed in Re B (A Child) [2009] UKSC 5 that biology and gender carry no automatic legal weight, and every decision depends on the welfare evidence specific to your child.
Can my child's wishes decide the outcome on their own?
Not solely. Your child’s wishes are one of six factors in the welfare checklist, weighted according to their age and understanding. An older child’s clearly reasoned view carries significant weight, but the court still considers the other factors before deciding what serves their welfare overall. Children should rarely be given the responsibility for what are adult decisions, but their voices should be heard as appropriate.
Do I need to go to court to use the welfare principle?
No, the welfare principle applies whether or not you go to court. Officers of the court, solicitors, and barristers abide by the welfare principle when giving advice on matters regarding a child’s welfare or property.
Director – SRA number: 494434
Lisa Buckridge is a Director at Purcell Solicitors and has over 20 years of experience in family law. She qualified in the early 2000s and became a director of the firm in October 2015. She holds accreditation as a Family Mediation Council-accredited Mediator, obtained in 2022, and is one of a small number of lawyer-mediators qualified to carry out Child Inclusive Mediation. She is also a trained collaborative lawyer and hybrid mediator.
Lisa handles the full range of family law matters, including divorce, financial settlements, children proceedings, pre- and post-nuptial agreements, and cohabitation disputes. Her referrals come principally from solicitors, including London-based practices, the local judiciary, and former clients, a pattern that reflects her standing in the field. She has worked on cases involving a terminal health diagnosis and cases in which the opposing party was a specialist family law barrister.
Chambers and Partners ranks Lisa in Band 3 for Family/Matrimonial in the Thames Valley in the UK Guide 2026. She has also been spotlighted specifically for her mediation practice in the Family/Matrimonial Mediators: Thames Valley category. Chambers describes her as “an excellent solicitor who robustly and effectively represents her clients’ interests” and as “incredibly clever” with the ability to “construct cases perfectly”.
Her reported cases include Re R (a child) EWCA Civ 35, in which the Court of Appeal held that a judge had erred by failing to properly evaluate a child’s wishes or to hear evidence from a CAFCASS officer before departing from that officer’s recommendation. She also acted in Scotching and Birch EWHC 844 (Ch), a case concerning burial arrangements and letters of administration following the death of a child; the case has since been cited in several academic papers and journal articles.
Lisa is a member of Resolution and is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA number: 494434). She can be contacted at lisa@purcellsolicitors.co.uk.