By 
50/50 Custody After Domestic Abuse Allegations: Interim Shared Care Secured in Fourteen Days
Part of: Domestic Abuse and Child Contact: Current Law
An account of a matter handled by our complex children team: how a father reached interim 50/50 custody fourteen days after he first came to us.
He arrived with eleven days of not knowing. Eleven days since he had last seen his four-year-old daughter. A phone that did not ring. A plastic wallet of paperwork, its folds gone soft.
The police had arrested him and released him on bail. One of the conditions was that he could not contact his former partner — not directly, not through anyone else. His former partner had also applied for a non-molestation order against him. And contact with his daughter had simply stopped. No order said that it should. No judge had decided anything about her at all. It had just stopped, and he could ask nobody why.
Fourteen days after that first conversation, a court order recorded equal time for his daughter with each parent: interim 50/50 custody.
If you are somewhere in the middle of the same thing, the outcome is not the useful part. The sequence is. Nobody argued anything clever. What made the difference was timing. The right application went in within the first forty-eight hours. Then everything the court needed was on paper before a hearing date existed.
What this account does not say
One thing to be plain about first. Nothing on this page says the allegations against him were false. That was not decided at this hearing and it was not the case we ran. The allegations remained live, and a court still had to decide them. What the court did was put a safe, temporary arrangement in place. That way a four-year-old kept a relationship with both parents while the court tested the adults’ dispute properly. Those are very different things, and a page that blurred them would be worthless.
The short version, in six lines
- An application about the two of you is not an application about your child. A non-molestation order prohibits molestation of a named person. It may also prohibit molestation of a child (Family Law Act 1996, section 42). It does not decide with whom a child lives or spends time. That is a child arrangements order under the Children Act 1989, section 8. It is a separate application on a separate test.
- A court cannot make an arrangement for your child until somebody asks it to. No order had stopped contact here. It had stopped because no application about the child existed.
- Bail conditions reach further than people assume — and a court can vary them. A “no contact” condition can cover indirect contact through third parties, including through a child (College of Policing, Domestic abuse: suspect strategy). But child contact is for the family court. A bail hearing generally does not deal with it (CPS legal guidance, Domestic Abuse). Where a condition is in the way, the route is to apply to vary it, on notice (Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, section 47(1E); Bail Act 1976, section 3(8)). Never assume it does not reach you.
Interim 50/50 custody: what the first hearing can do
- The first hearing can do real work. It is normally a First Hearing Dispute Resolution Appointment. The court ordinarily lists it in week 5 after issue, and at the latest in week 6 (Practice Direction 12B, paragraph 14.1). The court can make interim arrangements at it.
- Where someone alleges domestic abuse, an interim arrangement is the exception, not the default. Disputed allegations may still be undetermined. If so, the court should not make an interim child arrangements order unless two things hold. It must be in the child’s interests and it must not expose the child or the other parent to an unmanageable risk of harm (Practice Direction 12J, paragraph 25).
- This is one case, not a promise. The child’s welfare is the court’s paramount consideration (Children Act 1989, section 1(1)). Every case turns on its own facts. This court recorded equal time — in effect interim 50/50 custody — for this child on that day. It is not a starting point and it is not an entitlement.
Eleven days, and no order that said why
Our client had separated some months earlier. I will call him Mr B. Their daughter was of pre-school age. Contact had been informal and, by his account, unremarkable. Then an incident at the end of the relationship led someone to call the police.
The police arrested and interviewed him. They then released him on bail, with conditions prohibiting him from contacting his former partner directly or indirectly. Nobody had charged him by the time he came to us. Within days, his former partner applied for a non-molestation order against him, and the court listed it for an early hearing.
He had made no application of his own. A child arrangements order had crossed his mind, and he had downloaded the form. He had not sent it. Partly, that was because somebody had told him — wrongly — that there was no point applying. In their view, an outstanding domestic abuse allegation ruled it out.
The gap nobody had filled
So the position was this. There was an application in front of the family court about him. There was no application in front of the family court about his daughter. And with no application about her, a judge had nothing to decide, however strongly he felt about it.
That distinction is the one people miss. An order that stops you doing something differs from the absence of an order that lets you do something. He was not breaching anything by wanting to see his daughter. He simply had no order that said he could, and no live application capable of producing one. The silence was not a decision. It was a vacuum, and in family proceedings whoever moves first fills the vacuum.
What a non-molestation order actually does — and what it does not
The power comes from Part IV of the Family Law Act 1996. The order may prohibit the respondent from molesting a person associated with them. It may also prohibit molesting a relevant child, or both (Family Law Act 1996, section 42). The statute defines “associated” (section 62). It covers, among others, current and former spouses and civil partners, and cohabitants and former cohabitants. It also covers people who live or have lived in the same household, relatives, and people who have agreed to marry. So does an intimate personal relationship of significant duration.
What it is not is a decision about child arrangements. A child arrangements order governs those. It regulates with whom a child is to live, spend time or otherwise have contact, and when. The court makes it under section 8 of the Children Act 1989, on a separate application and a separate test.
So here is the most useful thing a parent in Mr B’s position can understand. A non-molestation order against you does not automatically mean you cannot see your child. It restrains how you behave towards a named person. Whether, and how, you spend time with your child is a question the family court answers on its own application.
Read the order itself
Read it properly, though. An order may prohibit molestation of a relevant child as well as an adult. It may also refer to particular acts rather than molestation in general (section 42). If the order names a child, the position on the ground is different. Take that document to a family law specialist; do not interpret it alone at a kitchen table.
Three things that surprise almost everyone
Most people meet one of these orders for the first time with no warning.
One can be made before you have heard about it. The court may make one without notice where it considers it just and convenient, having regard to all the circumstances. That includes any risk of significant harm if the court does not act immediately (section 45). Where that happens, the court must give the other person an opportunity to be heard at a full hearing. It must do so as soon as it is just and convenient.
An undertaking is not a soft version of an order. Instead of making an order, a court may accept an undertaking — a formal promise to the court (section 46). But it may not do so in every case. It cannot accept one in place of a non-molestation order where the respondent appears to have used or threatened violence against the applicant or a relevant child. The same applies where an order is necessary so that the law can punish any breach as a criminal offence. An undertaking carries no power of arrest. Breaking one is contempt of court rather than a criminal offence. That asymmetry is why the restriction exists, and why nobody should give or accept one without advice.
Breach, and why the order does not decide contact
Breaching an order is a criminal matter. Doing anything a non-molestation order prohibits, without reasonable excuse, is a criminal offence. It carries a maximum of five years’ imprisonment on conviction on indictment (section 42A). Where the court made the order without notice, a person may only be guilty for conduct at a time when they knew the order existed.
None of which makes such an application something to shrug at. It is serious, and you should answer it properly and on advice. If it is the allegation itself you are trying to answer, our guide to responding to allegations of domestic abuse is the better starting point. The point here is narrower, and it is the one that got a four-year-old back into a routine. That application does not decide whether a child sees a parent.
Why nothing could move until somebody asked
The problem was sequence, not merit. There was a hearing coming about the non-molestation application. There was no hearing coming about his daughter. Suppose he answered the application against him and nothing else. Then the best available outcome was a decision about the adults. His daughter’s position would stay untouched — which is to say, still nowhere.
The second problem was time, and time is not neutral in children proceedings. When a young child stops seeing a parent, the gap stops being an absence and becomes a fact. It becomes a routine the child has settled into, which any restoration then has to disturb. The statute is blunt about it. In any proceedings where a question about a child’s upbringing arises, the court must have regard to one general principle. Any delay in determining the question is likely to prejudice the child’s welfare (Children Act 1989, section 1(2)).
So we stopped treating this as one case about allegations. Instead we treated it as two running side by side. One was a defended non-molestation application. The other was a child arrangements application, issued immediately, so the court had something in front of it about the child.
The fourteen days: five pieces of work, in order
Issuing the children application
One. We assisted the client with them issuing the children application immediately. Parents most often leave this step until the court has dealt with the abuse application. It is also the step that costs them months. Issuing gave the court a live question about the child. So it had something it could decide at the first hearing, rather than merely a timetable to set.
You make that application on Form C100. Where a party makes allegations of harm or domestic abuse, a supplemental Form C1A goes with it. Both the person making the allegations and the person answering them use it. The court fee for a section 8 application is £270 (HMCTS full list of civil and family court fees, EX50A, July 2026, fee 2.1(d)). HMCTS uprates fees from time to time.
There is normally a requirement to attend a Mediation Information and Assessment Meeting first (Children and Families Act 2014, section 10(1)). However, the exemptions in the Family Procedure Rules 2010, rule 3.8 begin with evidence of domestic abuse. They include an arrest for a relevant offence, a caution, live criminal proceedings, a conviction, a protective order, and others listed at Practice Direction 3A, paragraph 20. Claiming an exemption is not the end of it. The court must inquire into whether the claim was valid and whether it still applies (rule 3.10).
Answering the allegation without heat
Two. We assisted the client answer the non-molestation application properly, and without heat. His statement set out his account and addressed each allegation specifically. It did not attack the mother’s character. Some statements read as an argument about the other parent rather than an account of events. Nothing damages a parent in this position faster. He did not deny the relationship had ended badly. He answered what she actually alleged, and nothing else.
Making handovers work around the bail conditions
Three. We worked out, in advance, how contact could physically happen while the bail conditions were in force. Start with what a bail condition actually reaches, because this is where parents get themselves into serious trouble. A “no contact” condition is not limited to phone calls. Police guidance is explicit that it covers communication whether direct, digital or through third parties. That includes indirect contact through friends, family or children, and any of these may amount to a breach (College of Policing, Domestic abuse: suspect strategy). A condition may name only the other parent. Even so, nobody in Mr B’s position should assume it leaves them free to make their own arrangements involving the child.
Varying bail conditions through the proper route
What is true is the useful part: child contact is a question for the family court. CPS legal guidance puts it plainly. The family court manages arrangements regarding child contact, and they are generally not a matter for a bail hearing (CPS legal guidance, Domestic Abuse). The ordinary statutory power imposes bail conditions (Bail Act 1976, section 3(6)). The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, section 47(1A) applies that power to bail a custody officer grants. And the conditions are not permanent. A condition may stand in the way of an arrangement you are asking the family court to make. If so, the route is to apply to vary it, on notice. That lets the police ask the other party for their view and check existing orders (Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, section 47(1E); Bail Act 1976, section 3(8)).
So we read Mr B’s conditions with him, word by word. Then we built a proposal the family court could make without putting him anywhere near a breach. Handovers would go through a named family member, at a fixed time and place. There would be no direct or indirect communication between the parents. Someone would keep a written record of each handover. It answered the obvious objection before anybody had to make it. Hand a judge a solution and they do not have to invent one.
Preparing for the Cafcass safeguarding letter
Four. We prepared the client for the safeguarding stage rather than letting it ambush him. Before a first hearing, Cafcass identify safety issues. They seek information from local authorities and carry out police checks on the parties. They then report to the court in a safeguarding letter within 17 working days of receiving the application. It must reach the court at least three working days before the hearing (Practice Direction 12B, paragraphs 13.1 to 13.7; 20 working days in the area of CAFCASS Cymru).
The letter goes to the court, not automatically to you. The court tells the parties what is in it, unless doing so would create a risk of harm to a party or the child (paragraph 14.13(a)). We advised Mr B to engage with the Cafcass officer openly, including about the arrest and the bail conditions. He was not to minimise any of it. A parent who volunteers the difficult fact is in a far stronger position than one who hides it until someone digs it out.
Asking for 50/50 custody the court could actually grant
Five. We were realistic with him about what to ask for. He wanted to walk out of court with his daughter that day. We advised him to ask instead for a defined interim arrangement with a safeguard at handover, until the court decided the allegations. That is an order a court can make consistently with its duty to consider risk. An all-or-nothing demand is one it cannot. That conversation was not comfortable. It is also the reason there was an order at the end of the day rather than an adjournment.
The first hearing: what was asked for, and what the parties agreed
The court listed both applications together. The Cafcass safeguarding letter was before the court. It recorded the police disclosure, including the arrest and the bail conditions. It also recorded that no professional had raised a concern about the child’s care by either parent.
Where a party raises domestic abuse, the court must consider it at all stages of the proceedings. It must do so specifically at the first hearing (Practice Direction 12J, paragraph 5). It should decide as soon as possible whether it needs a fact-finding hearing on any disputed allegation. If it decides it does not, the order must record its reasons (paragraphs 16 to 20).
Why interim 50/50 custody is the exception where abuse is alleged
Practice Direction 12J also sets the default for the meantime. It is not the default most people assume. The court may have directed a fact-finding hearing, or disputed allegations of domestic abuse may otherwise remain undecided. Either way, the court should not make an interim child arrangements order unless it is satisfied of two things. The order must be in the child’s interests. And it must not expose the child or the other parent to an unmanageable risk of harm (paragraph 25). Where the court considers interim contact at all, it asks further questions. Should someone supervise or support that contact, and who? Would indirect contact be better? Will contact benefit the child at all (paragraphs 26 and 27)? And where safeguarding checks are not back and no other reliable safeguarding information exists, the court must adjourn rather than make an interim order (paragraph 12).
So where there is an allegation of abuse, an interim shared care arrangement is the exception and not the norm. The parent seeking it has to justify it on both limbs. Nothing in this account suggests otherwise.
Be exact about what our client did and did not ask for. Our client did not ask the court to decide whether the allegations were true, and accepted that the court still had to decide them. Instead, our client asked it to look separately at what was safe for a four-year-old in the meantime. It had the material in front of it that morning.
The 50/50 custody proposal, on paper before the hearing
The proposal was specific, and specificity is the whole point. Equal division of time on a fortnightly pattern. Handovers through a named third party at a fixed location. No direct or indirect communication between the parents on any subject other than an emergency concerning the child. Even then, only in writing through a named intermediary. A return date for the court to review. We assisted the client who drafted it and put it on paper. Nobody had to invent it in a corridor twenty minutes before the hearing. Our guide to what happens at a first hearing sets out the day itself. For the practical side of being there, see attending court where there is a history of domestic abuse.
The parties resolved the matter by agreement, recorded in an order, rather than by a contested ruling. That is worth saying plainly. It is usually how these hearings end, yet people almost never describe them that way afterwards. The mother kept her position on the allegations in full. She conceded nothing about the truth of what she alleged, and the court found nothing against her.
The outcome: interim 50/50 custody, and what “interim” really means
The order recorded equal time with each parent for the child. It followed the pattern proposed, with handovers through the named third party, pending further order. The court gave directions for deciding the allegations. It dealt with the non-molestation application separately and on its own merits.
Eleven days of nothing, and no application. Fourteen days later, a court order for equal time — interim 50/50 custody, in the words most parents use. If you take one thing from this page, take this. The second number came from the first forty-eight hours, not from anything that happened in court.
Now the word doing all the work in that sentence: interim. An interim order is a holding position. It is not a finding about the allegations and it is not a prediction of the final order. The court can also vary or discharge it. If the court later found the allegations proved, the arrangements could change. The framework exists so that they can.
Why the law has no presumption of 50/50 custody
Take an opposed section 8 application. Unless the contrary is shown, the court must presume that a parent’s involvement in the child’s life will further the child’s welfare. But that presumption applies only to a parent whose involvement does not put the child at risk of harm. It also falls away where some evidence before the court suggests that involvement in any form would put the child at risk (Children Act 1989, sections 1(2A) and 1(6)). And the statute itself defines “involvement”. It means involvement of some kind, direct or indirect. It expressly does not mean any particular division of a child’s time (section 1(2B)).
That is the most misquoted provision in the area, usually by people who have read a headline about it. It does not create a presumption of equal time. Nor does it create a right to 50/50 custody. Equal time here was what the court would record on the material before it, on that day, for that child, with a safeguard attached. The difference between those two readings matters. It is the difference between a workable expectation and a wasted hearing. If you want the vocabulary rather than the story, see lives with orders and spends time with orders and shared custody arrangements.
If your contact has stopped: four things worth knowing
We wrote this for a parent, not a lawyer. It describes how the process works, not what should happen in your case.
- Do not wait for a decision on the allegation before applying about your child. This is the mistake that costs the most. Parents usually make it on somebody else’s confident advice. The two questions run in parallel. And the court cannot make an arrangement for your child until somebody asks it to.
- Work out which order does what. An order about how you must behave towards another adult is not an order about your child. Nobody writes orders for the person on the receiving end. Take yours to someone who can read it with you, rather than assuming what it means.
- Arrive with the mechanics solved, not with a principle. Whether you want 50/50 custody or a few hours a week, bring a written proposal: who does the handover, where, at what time, and how the two adults avoid each other entirely. A parent who does that is asking for something a court can grant. A parent asking for contact in principle wants the court to invent the arrangement. At a busy hearing, there is no time to.
- Keep the two sets of proceedings tidy. Criminal and family proceedings run on separate tracks, with separate tests and separate timetables. Make sure whoever advises you on each knows what is happening in the other, in writing. The family court may need material from the police. If so, Practice Direction 12J directs it to the current Protocol on disclosure of information between family and criminal agencies and jurisdictions. So the two systems do talk, but not automatically and not quickly.
50/50 custody: the questions people actually ask
These come from the live Google results page in the United Kingdom. We took them from the People Also Ask box and the related searches on 6 September 2026.
How does 50/50 custody work in the UK?
“Custody” is not the legal term in England and Wales. What people mean by 50/50 custody is a child’s time split broadly equally between two homes. A child arrangements order records it. That order regulates with whom a child is to live, spend time or otherwise have contact, and when (Children Act 1989, section 8). Most parents agree the pattern themselves and never go near a court. Where they cannot, the court decides on an application. It then fits the pattern to the child rather than choosing it from a menu.
How easy is it to get 50/50 custody in the UK?
It is not a starting point and it is not a presumption. On an opposed section 8 application, the court presumes that a parent’s involvement furthers the child’s welfare, unless the contrary is shown. But that applies only to a parent who can take part without putting the child at risk of harm. And “involvement” expressly does not mean any particular division of a child’s time (Children Act 1989, sections 1(2A), 1(2B) and 1(6)). The child’s welfare, as the paramount consideration, decides whether the court orders an equal division. On an opposed application, the court also applies the welfare checklist. That covers the child’s wishes and feelings, their needs, and the effect of a change in circumstances. It also covers any harm suffered or risked, and how capable each parent is of meeting those needs (sections 1(1), 1(3) and 1(4)(a)).
Can a mother refuse 50/50 custody?
Nobody can force a parent to agree. What a refusal does is move the decision from the two of you to a judge. That happens on an application under section 8 of the Children Act 1989. Refusing settles nothing by itself and is not a veto. But nor does it count against a parent simply for having refused. The court decides by reference to the child’s welfare as the paramount consideration. On an opposed application, it also applies the welfare checklist (sections 1(1), 1(3) and 1(4)(a)).
What are the disadvantages of 50/50 custody?
The objections that come up most are practical rather than legal. A school-age child moving between two homes in different areas faces travel and disruption. A very young child who needs one settled routine may struggle with a constant rotation. And an equal split demands a great deal of co-operation from two people who may not be able to speak to each other. Those concerns feed into the welfare checklist. It covers the likely effect of a change in circumstances, the child’s needs, and the child’s own wishes and feelings (Children Act 1989, section 1(3)). There are two financial consequences too, and they are the next two answers.
How does shared care affect child maintenance?
It reduces it on a fixed scale, but only in some cases. The paying parent must be on the flat, reduced or basic rate. The child must also stay overnight for at least 52 nights a year. The reduction for each child is 14.29% for 52 to 103 nights and 28.57% for 104 to 155 nights. It rises to 42.86% for 156 to 174 nights. For 175 nights or more it is 50% plus a further £7 a week (GOV.UK, How child maintenance is worked out, step 6). The number of nights comes from a court order or from what the parents have agreed. Where they agree at least 52 but not the exact number, the Child Maintenance Service assumes 52. Payments cannot go below £7 a week.
So 50/50 custody sits in the top band, which is one reason parents argue about maintenance and child arrangements together, even though completely different places decide them. Our child maintenance team deals with the calculation side.
Who gets child benefit if care is shared 50/50?
Nobody can divide it. Only one person can get child benefit for a child, and two people cannot get it for the same child. That does not change because the child’s time splits equally. Where two people are responsible for the same child, GOV.UK says to agree between yourselves who claims. If you cannot agree, HM Revenue and Customs decides (GOV.UK, Child Benefit: who can get Child Benefit).
Does a non-molestation order stop me seeing my child?
Not by itself. It prohibits molestation of a named person, and may also prohibit molestation of a relevant child (Family Law Act 1996, section 42). The court decides arrangements for a child separately, under section 8 of the Children Act 1989. In practice an order can make the mechanics harder, and a doorstep handover may be impossible. That is a problem to solve with a workable written proposal. It is not a reason to treat contact as over. Read the order itself: the position is different where it names a child.
Can I get an interim arrangement while the court still has to decide the allegations?
It is possible — it is what happened above — but it is the exception. The rule reads as a restriction rather than a balance. The court may have directed a fact-finding hearing, or disputed allegations of domestic abuse may otherwise remain undecided. In that case, it should not make an interim child arrangements order unless satisfied of two things. The order must be in the child’s interests and must not expose the child or the other parent to an unmanageable risk of harm (Practice Direction 12J, paragraph 25). A specific, safe, worked proposal gives a court something it can feel sure about. A general request does not.
About this account
We publish this account with the client’s consent. We have changed or removed names, locations, dates, the court and identifying details to protect the family, and altered some details for the same reason. It is a record of one matter, not a prediction that 50/50 custody will follow in any other. The outcome in any case depends on its own facts and its own evidence.
This page describes how the process works. It is not legal advice about your situation. If you are in this position, get advice on your own facts; a free initial consultation is the place to start.
We checked every statement of law on this page against the primary source on 6 September 2026. That means the legislation itself on legislation.gov.uk, the Family Procedure Rules and their practice directions, and GOV.UK guidance. Law changes, and HMCTS uprates court fees. If you are reading this a long way from that date, check the current position.
If contact with your child has stopped
Perhaps your time with your child has stopped. Or perhaps someone has made an application against you and you do not know what it means for seeing your child. Either way, our complex children team offers a free initial consultation. Whether you are aiming for 50/50 custody or simply to see your child again, the first forty-eight hours matter. Call Kabir Family Law on 0330 094 5880, or use the enquiry form on this page.
If you are a father trying to work out where you stand, start with child custody for fathers. More accounts like this one are on our success stories page.
