The High Court has affirmed a Circuit Court order governing a young child’s access to his father, rejecting the father’s appeal for a substantial increase in contact, including a proposed 50/50 split of time.
Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered the judgment on 9 October 2020. The parents, identified as X and Y in the judgment, share custody of their son, Z, who lives with his mother. The father had access on two half-days each week, with no weekend access. He sought a larger role in the child’s life and submitted a sample calendar for an arrangement approaching equal time.
The judge said both parents agreed that Z was thriving under the existing schedule. Their views differed on whether a change would serve the child’s interests, and the court had no independent expert evidence to assess the proposed arrangements or their possible effect on the child. The judge said expert evidence was not mandatory, but its absence affected the court’s ability to evaluate the competing proposals.
The father described the 50/50 arrangement as aspirational and said any transition should be gradual. The judge considered that left uncertainty about what specific arrangement the father wanted the court to order and how it would serve Z’s interests. The mother said she was open to greater access over time while seeking to preserve the child’s routine. She had also proposed revised arrangements during the appeal, but the judge concluded the existing schedule should remain in place in the absence of evidence supporting a change.
The court applied the statutory requirement to treat the child’s best interests as the paramount consideration. It also considered the child’s young age, established routine and the shared evidence that he was doing well. The judge stressed that access is not a percentages exercise and that neither parent has an automatic right to equal time.
The High Court affirmed the Circuit Court order and clarified that it did not include weekend access. The judge said the father’s weekday work availability and the mother’s Monday-to-Friday work schedule remained relevant to that arrangement. The judgment recognised that greater access for the father would almost certainly arise in the future, all else being equal, but concluded the evidence did not show that the time for such a change had arrived.