The High Court has ordered that an eight-year-old girl, identified as A, reside with her father while setting out regular term-time and holiday arrangements with her mother. The ruling was made on appeal from child arrangements orders of the Circuit Family Court; the divorce decree and financial relief applications remain outstanding.
Ms Justice Nuala Jackson gave judgment on 5 August 2025 in a family law appeal between T.T., the applicant, and R.R., the respondent. She ordered joint custody, with both parents remaining joint guardians. During term time, A is to spend three weekends out of four with her mother. The order also sets arrangements for bank holidays, Christmas, Easter and school holidays, and allows each parent optional remote contact on nights A is not with them, for up to one hour.
The judge said the decision followed an assessment of A’s best interests under the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964. She found that A had strong attachments to both parents and that each was able to meet her needs. The child’s views, conveyed through a section 47 assessor’s reports and oral evidence, were that she wanted the current arrangements to continue. The judge accepted those views as authentic and noted A’s attachment to her existing school, friends and community.
The appeal followed a Circuit Family Court hearing in January 2025 that dealt with child arrangements only. The mother challenged the orders, and the High Court had also received an updated assessment dated 30 June 2025. The judge noted that the mother’s time with A had previously been unnecessarily curtailed, but said it had increased under interim arrangements during the appeal and that A had benefited from the additional time.
The judgment considered disputes about the mother’s disability and care arrangements, alleged enticements, schooling and the parents’ capacity to care. The judge found no current parenting capacity issue for either parent. She rejected the allegation that the father had promised a foreign holiday to influence A, while finding that a possible dog had been discussed tentatively. She concluded that moving A’s school community to her mother’s location would risk weakening and significantly disrupting A’s relationship with her father.
The judge declined to direct a review of the child arrangements, saying the family needed time to settle without further litigation. She listed the matter for any issues or clarifications at 11am on a day in the week of 29 September 2025, with counsel to notify the Registrar of an agreed date.