What does being `the resident parent’ mean?
What does this actually mean???
Every time someone has told me they absolutely, positively have to be the resident parent I have always asked `What will a residence order allow you to do that you can’t do now?’
I usually get a blank stare. Or told something that isn’t true. Often that’s by the other side’s solicitor or barrister. If it’s a parent it’s usually something about being able to call the police and get the kids back if the non resident parent refuses to hand them over.
Problem is that it’s not true – if you want the thin blue line to get involved you’ll need an Emergency Protection Order (form C11) – covered in Section 44 of the Children Act. Or they’ll have to be convinced the child will suffer significant harm if not removed (that’s section 46). Most they’ll do (or the most they should do is a Welfare Check).
Pro-tip: Don’t think about trying to use these except in very, very extreme circumstances.
A resident parent has precisely no powers to demand a child is with them other than going through the courts – they are in exactly the same position as a non resident parent. Which is why if you phone 999 and demand your children are returned you’ve got a good chance of being told to speak to your solicitor and/or take it to court.
So in light of the above I present you with a comprehensive list of things that a resident parent can do that a non resident parent can’t. Here we go.
- A resident parent can remove a child from jurisdiction for up to 28 days without the permission of the non resident parent.
- That’s it.
A non resident parent does need permission of the resident parent.
What’s the point then? Let’s be honest – it’s a nice title innit? You’re the RESIDENT parent. The main one. The boss. It doesn’t matter that little title means almost precisely nothing – doesn’t affect when your kids are with you, who is in charge, education, medicine or anything else like that. That doesn’t mean that many of the people and agencies you deal with will agree with me on this…but that’s their ignorance and not based in law.
So what do you do when you are faced with an ex who demands they get this title? Ask them (or their solicitor) What harm will the child come to if this order isn’t granted?’ Expect to be told something along the lines of It’s a well established principle’ (rubbish). `The law is clear on this‘ (Ask them which law – there ain’t one). `It reflects the reality on the ground‘ (irrelevant). `The order HAS to say who the child lives with‘ (no it doesn’t…).
The No Order’ principle states the court must start from the position that no order shall be made unless the court consider that doing so would be better for the child than making no order at all’– or in other words `Prove that an order is needed’.
Of course the `go to’ most solicitors will use for this is to say that such an order will make the primary carer (usually Mum) feel more secure if such an order is made which of course will impact the children.
So consider this. While a residence order is of little significance or relevance to you as a contact parent it is often the case it means a great deal to the primary carer. With this in mind you can agree…or disagree that such an order should be made. You may wish to agree to such an order on the proviso that your goals for contact are agreed to. Otherwise you’ll have no option but to point out there is little benefit for such an order to be made.
(One final word – they’re not called `residence orders’ any more. It’s about Who the child lives with’. Same thing, different name – but `residence order’ is a little easier to say and everyone still calls it that in court).