Why would a SRO be rejected?

Why would a shared residence order be rejected?

After all a SRO does not mean a 50/50 split in contact.If anything its more of a symbolic statement?

One argument against it I''ve read is if the parents are hostile to each other than it wouldn''t work because they wouldn''t agree with whats best for the child.

The mother can''t just go ahead and book schools,medical treatment etc anyway as even if the father doesn''t have a SRO he has PR.Right?
So having SRO doesn''t strengthen his position because he has PR.Or does it?

Does it mean for example he could go ahead and change the childs doctor without telling the mother whereas with PR he can''t can he?

Argument in favour of SRO is it removes the power from the RP and she no longer looks upon the child as a tool with which to control the NRP.Conflict is reduced.

In my case this is very important as anyone reading my position statement for my first hearing would be in no doubt she looks upon our son as a tool.This will be a main point at my next hearing regards SRO.

So really,any good reason to turn down a SRO application?

The probability of a SRO application being successful is more likely when the parents live in close proximity of one another and schools, the child spends a substantial amount of time with each parent and perceives they have two homes and there is a history of shared care. Sometimes the courts have awarded shared residence when parents live a distance apart, the child spends only a few hours with one parent or to equalize the power between parents.

All those with PR for a child need to agree important decisions such as which school children attend and a change of doctor.

I still don;t understand why a NRP would be refused a SRO when as it seems there is little difference between that and PR.

If having a SRO makes no difference on what contact the court award then it seems to me its about finding reasons not to give SRO as opposed to the other way round.

I have PR yet last year my ex changed our boys surgery and doctor and put him into a nursery that I didnt agree with.
This year shes put him into another nursery which I didnt have any say in but wouldnt have objected to.

So how would having a SRO help or wouldnt it?
If not then it says even more theres little reason to oppose it.

When I go to court I don''t know whether to try and strengthen my case for SRO by showing her uncooperative behaviour or giving instances where she has cooperated instead to show that with SRO we could work together.

So again.What reasons NOT to give SRO?

Joe - when my son''s ex took him to court the first time (PSO - she claimed he was trying the abduct the children), as soon as she arrived at Court she offered contact. My son really wanted 50/50 but eventually accepted what was on offer. When he was given the handwritten paper in Court, he saw that it was an order for shared residence! How easy was that.

However, what followed has certainly not been easy and she has since tried to implement an Ex Parte order for no contact with a series of false allegations (which apparently have now been withdrawn). In any case, her application failed.

My son has now applied for 50/50 share residence and his Hearing is next week.

I hate to be blunt on a forum but my ex. dil and an out and out liar so my son is prepared for anything as she makes it up as she goes along. To be honest, its fearful to be connected to such an individual as my ex. dil.

I still don;t understand why a NRP would be refused a SRO when as it seems there is little difference between that and PR.

PR gives both parents equal responsibility and rights to carry out those responsibility.

In this Act “parental responsibility” means all the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which by law a parent of a child has in relation to the child and his property.
s3(1) CA 1989

A Residence Order, shared or in favour of one parent, just determines where a child lives.

“a residence order” means an order settling the arrangements to be made as to the person with whom a child is to live; s8(1) CA1989

I have PR yet last year my ex changed our boys surgery and doctor and put him into a nursery that I didnt agree with.
This year shes put him into another nursery which I didnt have any say in but wouldnt have ­object­ed to.

There is no statute to prevent a parent from acting unilaterally in most circumstances. If the other parent disagrees with an important decision or action relating to PR it is open to them to apply to court for a s8 order to regulate PR.

stepper wrote:

Joe - when my son''s ex took him to court the first time (PSO - she claimed he was trying the abduct the children),

My ex has talked about taking our son abroad to where she used to live.Whilst I don''t think she could or would go abroad this is something I will bring up in court to strengthen my case for SRO.

Fiona wrote:

In this Act “parental responsibility” means all the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which by law a parent of a child has in relation to the child and his property.
s3(1) CA 1989

A Residence Order, shared or in favour of one parent, just determines where a child lives.

“a residence order” means an order settling the arrangements to be made as to the person with whom a child is to live; s8(1) CA1989

Ok so basically as the word in the title suggests,''Residency'',a SRO has nothing to do with the rights of a NRP.PR ,parental ''RESPONSIBILITY'',as the word suggests covers all of that.

So having a SRO gives the NRP no extra rights because it has nothing to do with rights but with where the child lives.

Therefore even more reason not to turn down a SRO application even if the child stays with the NRP one weekend a fortnight?
Again a SRO is just symbolic so in that case why are so few fathers awarded this?

From a NRP point of view the main or only reason to fight for a SRO is to have your house recognised as your childs home even if they have two?

So that should mean much harder for RP to move child abroad or somewhere long distance within the UK?

If a RP changes doctors,puts a child in a nursery without even consulting the NRP,doesn''t inform the NRP of medical conditions,would this be looked badly upon by a Judge?