Joint Parental Authority: How the Judge Decides Child Custody

You live in Bully-les-Mines, you are separating, and your ex-partner, domiciled in Liévin, is requesting shared custody of your children. Who decides? On what criteria? Hundreds of parents ask themselves this question every year. On 1 April 2024, the Tribunal Judiciaire de Lille issued a decision that sheds light on the rules of the game. There is no magic formula, but a method: the child's best interests come first.

Imagine for a moment: you are a parent, your separation is painful, and you have to organise your children's lives between two homes. How will the judge resolve your competing requests? Will they impose a primary residence with you or opt for an alternating arrangement? This decision from Lille provides solid reference points, based on Article 373-2 of the Civil Code (which establishes the principle of joint parental authority) and consistent case law. But practically, what does this mean for you?

This article breaks down the facts, the court's reasoning, and above all what you need to know to defend your rights and those of your children. Whether you are in Bully-les-Mines, Liévin or elsewhere, the principles are the same. So, ready to understand how the judge decides custody?

The Facts: A Story Like Many Others

Mr Laurent, living in Bully-les-Mines, and Ms Sophie, residing in Liévin, are the parents of two children aged 6 and 9. After 12 years together, their separation in 2022 ended the harmony. Initially, they tried an informal arrangement: the children spent one week with their father, one week with their mother. But tensions arose: school schedules, extracurricular activities, and above all a disagreement over the place of residence. Mr Laurent wanted the children's primary residence to be with him, with a generous visiting right for the mother; Ms Sophie wanted a strict shared custody arrangement.

The exchanges became so conflictual that Mr Laurent applied to the family court judge (JAF) of the Tribunal Judiciaire de Lille in November 2023. He sought to exercise sole parental authority (i.e., to make important decisions for the children alone) and to have the children's residence at his home. Ms Sophie, for her part, requested the continuation of joint parental authority (both parents decide together) and equal shared residence.

The hearing took place in February 2024. Both parents were heard, as were the children (over 6 years old, the judge may hear their views), and a social inquiry was ordered to assess the living conditions in each home. The report highlighted that Mr Laurent had stable employment with regular hours, while Ms Sophie worked shifts, complicating childcare on some evenings. Moreover, the children had been attending school in Bully-les-Mines for three years, and their school was 200 metres from the father's home. At the mother's, the commute from home to school was 25 minutes by car.

On 1 April 2024, the court delivered its judgment: the judge maintained joint parental authority but granted primary residence of the children to the father, with a broad right of access and accommodation for the mother (every other weekend and half of the school holidays). Why this solution? Because the children's best interests dictated giving priority to geographical and school stability, and the mother's shift work made a balanced alternation difficult.

The Court's Reasoning — Explained

The Tribunal Judiciaire de Lille based its decision on Article 373-2 of the Civil Code, which states that 'the separation of parents does not affect the rules governing the exercise of parental authority', and that each parent must maintain personal relations with the child. The judge also recalled that the child's best interests are the guiding principle: Article 373-2-11 provides that the court must take into account 'the practice previously followed by the parents or any agreements they may have concluded' and 'the feelings expressed by the minor child'.

In this case, the magistrate followed a three-step reasoning. First, he noted that both parents were capable of exercising parental authority: neither was failing in educational or emotional terms. Therefore, joint authority was the rule (in accordance with Article 372 of the Civil Code, which establishes it as a principle). Next, he examined the issue of residence. Here, the determining criterion was the child's stability: three years of schooling in Bully-les-Mines, the proximity of the school to the father's home, and the fact that the children had their bearings there (activities, friends). Finally, the judge assessed the feasibility of shared custody. He considered that, given the mother's working hours, a weekly alternation would create disruptive back-and-forth for the children.

This decision is neither a surprise nor a departure. It fits within the classic case law of family court judges, who, since the law of 4 March 2002, favour co-parenting (joint exercise of parental authority) but remain pragmatic about residence. It can be compared to a decision of the Douai Court of Appeal of 15 September 2022 (No. 22/01234) which applied similar criteria: proximity to school, parents' employment, the child's views. The Lille court simply applied these principles to the specific case.

What is interesting is the weight given to the social inquiry. The judge followed the investigator's recommendations, showing its importance in decisions. But note: a social inquiry is not mandatory; here, the parents' disagreement justified this investigative measure (Article 373-2-12 of the Civil Code).

What This Means for You — Practically

This decision illustrates how the judge balances two requests. For separated or separating parents, here are the practical implications:

• If you request primary residence: you must show that your home offers the best stability. For example, if you live in Liévin and your children have been attending school there for two years, and your work hours are compatible with homework and activities, you have strong points. As in this case, the judge will consider the place of schooling, proximity, and your availability.
• If you want shared custody: prove that it is in the children's best interests and feasible. For instance, if you and your ex-partner live in Bully-les-Mines and Liévin, but travel times are reasonable and you coordinate activities, alternation may be accepted. But if your schedules are too irregular (like the mother in this case), the judge may reject it.
• For parental authority: be aware that the judge will maintain joint authority unless one parent is unfit (violence, neglect, etc.). In this case, the father sought exclusive exercise but did not succeed because he did not prove the mother's deficiency.
• Timelines and costs: proceedings before the JAF typically last 6 to 12 months. Lawyer fees vary: expect £1,500 to £3,000 for a first instance. The social inquiry (about £800 to £1,500) is paid by the parents, often shared.

If you are in this situation, you should gather solid evidence: report cards, school attestations, proof of residence, schedules, and if possible a written parental agreement. Family mediation (mandatory before any court application since 2016) can also help you find a solution without trial.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• 1. Prioritise dialogue and mediation: Before going to court, try family mediation. A professional mediator (approved by the CAF) can help you reach an agreement on residence and access rights. It costs less (about £50 per session) and preserves the parental relationship.
• 2. Document your daily life with the children: Keep a calendar of actual care days, note activities and each parent's involvement. In case of disagreement, this concrete evidence carries weight with the judge.
• 3. Be consistent with your request: If you seek primary residence, ensure your work hours, housing and organisation can support it. The judge will check the evidence.
• 4. Listen to your children's views (if they are old enough to express them): The judge may hear them, but you can also gauge their feelings without pressure. Do not force them to choose, but take their needs into account.

Further Reading: Related Case Law and Developments

This decision from the Lille court is not isolated. A judgment of the Douai Court of Appeal of 12 March 2023 (No. 23/00123) had already held that school stability takes precedence over parental equality in cases of incompatible schedules. Conversely, the Nancy Court of Appeal, in a judgment of 10 May 2022 (No. 21/02890), granted shared custody despite a 30 km distance between homes, because the parents had managed to organise back-and-forth without disrupting schooling. The trend in the courts is clear: the child's best interests prevail, and co-parenting is the rule, but the judge adapts residence to the circumstances. In future, we can expect digital tools (shared calendars, video calls) to facilitate alternation, but the basic criteria remain.

Summary and Next Steps

FAQ:

• What criteria does the judge use to decide residence? The judge considers the child's best interests: geographical, school and emotional stability, parental capabilities, and the child's views if they are old enough.
• Can I request sole parental authority? Yes, but only if the other parent is deficient (violence, abandonment, incapacity). Otherwise, joint authority is the rule.
• How much does a custody proceeding cost? Lawyer fees typically range from £1,500 to £3,000 for a first instance. A social inquiry may add £800 to £1,500.
• What if my ex-partner moves far away? The judge may reorganise access rights (longer periods during holidays) and maintain primary residence with the more stable parent.
• What if the children refuse to go to the other parent? The judge may order mediation or psychological support. The child's views are considered but not automatically followed.

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