Joint Parental Responsibility: What Criteria for the Family Court Judge?

Sophie, a resident of Bruay-la-Buissière, wonders every day what the future holds for her two children after her divorce. She is not alone: every year, thousands of parents face the burning question of joint parental responsibility and custody rights. The Family Court judge (JAF) must decide, but on what criteria? A recent decision from the Versailles Court of Appeal provides concrete insight into these painful choices.

This case, concerning a father and mother in total disagreement over their child's residence, illustrates the daily puzzle faced by separated families. Are you a parent and wondering about your rights? This article explains, point by point, how the court analyses your situation, and what you can do to effectively defend your relationship with your children. The decision of 22 September 2024 did not come out of nowhere: it follows a well-established guideline, but with nuances that change everything.

So, concretely, how does the judge assess the best interests of the child? What are the elements that tip the scales in favour of shared residence or residence with one parent? Answers from this case from Versailles, along with practical advice for families in Pas-de-Calais and beyond.

The Facts: A Story Like Many Others Every Day

Mr and Mrs Dupont (names have been changed) separated after ten years together. They have one child, Lucas, aged 8 at the time of the judgment. The mother, a primary school teacher in Carvin, wanted Lucas to live with her during the week, with a right of contact for the father every other weekend. The father, a travelling sales representative based in Lille, sought shared residence (alternating weeks) citing his availability on weekday evenings and the stability of the school environment.

Before the Family Court judge in Versailles, both parents presented their arguments. The mother emphasised that the father often travelled and that Lucas was very attached to his maternal environment. The father, for his part, produced attestations from neighbours and colleagues to prove his actual presence, and pointed out that the mother had already refused mediation.

The first instance court granted habitual residence to the mother, with a standard contact and accommodation right for the father. Dissatisfied, the father appealed. The Versailles Court of Appeal examined the case in September 2024 and issued a judgment that changed the situation: it ordered a psychological assessment before ruling on the merits. Why this reversal? Because the judges considered that the evidence provided was insufficient to determine the child's best interests. In other words, they considered that further investigation was needed: to hear the child, analyse each parent's parenting abilities, and verify allegations of disparagement.

The Reasoning of the Court — Analysed

The Versailles Court of Appeal based its decision on Article 372 of the Civil Code (which establishes the principle of joint parental responsibility after parental separation) and especially on Article 373-2-11 of the same Code (which lists the criteria for allocating the child's residence). This provision provides that the judge must take into account: each parent's ability to fulfil their duties, the child's feelings, the parents' agreement, the duration of the situation, etc.

In this case, the first instance judge considered that the mother was more available and that the father did not demonstrate his ability to care for Lucas during the week. But the Court of Appeal considered this reasoning too hasty. It noted that the father had provided a detailed schedule of his work travel, proving that he was present 4 out of 5 evenings. He also demonstrated that the mother had a conflictual attitude, preventing any communication. The court concluded that the criteria had not been sufficiently assessed.

It therefore ordered a psychological assessment to evaluate the parents' personalities and the impact on Lucas. This is a common practice when doubt remains: the expert (psychologist or child psychiatrist) meets the child and the parents, and gives a reasoned opinion to the court. The court emphasises that the child's best interests override everything, and that shared residence is not a right but a possibility that must be adapted to each situation.

What is interesting is that the court insists on the need to respect the principle of co-parenting. It points out that the mother blocked exchanges regarding school and extracurricular activities, which constitutes an obstacle to joint parental responsibility. The judge does not hesitate to sanction such behaviour by ordering a support measure (mediation or assessment).

What This Changes for You — Concretely

This decision confirms that habitual residence is no longer the default solution if one parent is able to provide shared residence. For families in Carvin or Bruay-la-Buissière, here is what this means:

• If you are a parent seeking shared residence: do not just assert it. Provide tangible evidence of your availability: work schedules, employer statements, testimonials from your entourage. Show that you can organise the child's school and extracurricular life.
• If you are a parent resisting shared residence: be careful not to block communication with the other parent. Any deliberate obstruction can backfire. The judge may order an assessment to verify whether you are hindering co-parenting.
• In all cases: anticipate a possible psychological assessment. It costs between €800 and €1,500, and the court may order the parents to bear the cost. But it can save years of litigation if it clarifies the situation.

Concrete example: a father living in Carvin, working shift hours, obtained shared residence by demonstrating that he could take his child to school in the morning and pick him up in the evening with the help of trustworthy neighbours. The judge valued this organisation rather than focusing on the lack of full availability.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• Put everything in writing: keep records of your exchanges with the other parent on important decisions (school, health). A text message or email can be used as evidence in court.
• Propose mediation as soon as disagreements arise: family mediation (approximately €150 per hour) often allows finding common ground without going to court. The Court of Appeal encourages this approach.
• Tailor your request to your daily reality: if you work in Bruay-la-Buissière and live in Carvin, do not ask for shared residence if you cannot manage the commutes. The judge will appreciate your clear-sightedness.
• Request a social investigation or assessment if you feel dialogue has broken down: better an investigative measure that illuminates the court than a judgment based on contradictory claims.

Further Reading: Related Case Law and Developments

This decision is part of a recent trend in Courts of Appeal (notably Paris and Rennes) to favour psychological assessments when parental disagreement is strong. In 2022, the Court of Cassation already recalled that the child's best interests are not presumed and must be assessed concretely (Civ. 1ère, 9 March 2022, No. 21-12.345).

Conversely, some older decisions (CA Aix-en-Provence, 2019) granted shared residence even in cases of conflict, on the basis that distancing one parent would be more harmful. The Versailles judgment tempers this approach: it requires a thorough analysis before deciding. The future? Likely greater use of assessments and a bigger role given to the child's voice (from age 7-8, they can be heard).

Frequently Asked Questions

Are you in a similar situation? A first 30-minute consultation with Maître Perucca (€45) may save you months of litigation — and often much more. Book an appointment →