Shared Residence: The Judge Rules in Favour of Shared Custody for the Child's Best Interests

In Pont-l'Abbé, as in many communes of Finistère, parental separations are often painful. Marie, a nurse at the local hospital, and Yann, a travelling salesman, have been arguing for months over the living arrangements for their son Lucas, aged 8. Marie wants to keep primary residence, Yann wants alternating weeks. Who is right? The Nanterre court has just ruled on a similar case — and its decision sheds light for all separated parents.

Shared residence (alternating custody) has become a common living arrangement after separation. Yet one parent in two still opposes it, fearing instability for the child. But what does the judge say? How does he or she assess the child's best interests (a central concept in family law)? The decision of the Nanterre Tribunal de Grande Instance of 19 June 2025 (RG-32106) provides valuable insights. Analysis.

The Facts: A Story Like Any Other

Mr X, a salesman in Pont-l'Abbé, and Mrs Y, a childminder in Audierne, are parents of an 8-year-old boy, Timothée. After six years of living together, the couple separated in 2024. Initially, a protection order from the family court judge (juge aux affaires familiales, JAF) set the child's residence with the mother, with extended visiting rights for the father. However, the father soon challenged this decision: he claimed the mother was preventing a balanced relationship and that shared residence (alternating weeks) was possible and beneficial for the child.

The mother strongly opposed. She argued that her part-time job made her more available, unlike the father whose work-related travel was frequent. She produced a medical certificate from a paediatrician in Audierne suggesting the child needed stability. But the father proved he had reduced his travel and arranged a three-room flat in Pont-l'Abbé, close to Timothée's school. Attempts at family mediation failed. The father applied to the family court judge in Nanterre, which had jurisdiction as the last common domicile.

At the hearing in May 2025, positions were entrenched. The mother relied on Article 373-2-9 of the Civil Code (which governs the child's residence arrangements) and reminded that shared residence is not an automatic right. The father, in turn, relied on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Article 9) and a recent sociological study showing that alternating arrangements benefit children over 6. The judge ordered a social investigation (enquiry entrusted to a social worker) and a psychological assessment of the child. Both investigators concluded that Timothée was attached to both parents and showed no particular disorder. The child, heard by the judge (Article 388-1 of the Civil Code), expressed a wish to spend as much time with his father.

The Court's Reasoning — Analysed

The Nanterre court delivered a detailed judgment. It first recalled that parental authority (the set of rights and duties of parents concerning the child's person and property) is exercised jointly by both parents, even after separation (Article 372 of the Civil Code). It emphasised that the child's residence may be fixed with one parent or the other, or in alternation. "Shared residence is no longer an exception but a standard arrangement provided that each parent's accommodation is satisfactory and the distance between homes is not excessive," wrote the judge.

The judges analysed the mother's arguments point by point. They dismissed the medical certificate because the paediatrician had not met the father or examined the alternating arrangement. The social investigation showed that the father had a bedroom for the child, that the school agreed to take the child for lunch on the father's custody days, and that the journey between Pont-l'Abbé and Audierne (30 minutes by car) was entirely reasonable. The judge applied the principle of proportionality (the measure must be appropriate to the child's interests).

Importantly, the court cited Article 373-2-11 of the Civil Code: to determine residence arrangements, the judge considers past practice, the child's feelings, each parent's ability to respect the other's rights, the results of social investigations, and any information gathered. In this case, the father had always been involved in Timothée's daily life (he took him to school two days a week before the separation). The mother, on the other hand, had made disparaging remarks about the father in front of the child. The judge concluded that shared residence was the arrangement most consistent with the child's best interests (a cardinal principle of family law). He therefore ordered alternating weeks, with school and medical expenses shared equally (Article 371-2 on contribution to maintenance and education).

This decision confirms a consistent trend in case law since the Act of 4 March 2002: the judge favours co-parenting and will only depart from alternating residence for serious reasons (violence, drug addiction, excessive distance). Here, the mother's fears were not supported by objective facts.

What This Means for You — Practical Implications

If you are a separated parent considering shared residence, this decision directly concerns you. The mere fact that the other parent opposes it will no longer prevent an alternating arrangement. Judges examine three key criteria:

• Accommodation capacity: each parent must have a decent home with a bedroom for the child. In Audierne, a two-room flat may suffice if the child has a personal space.
• Distance: a maximum of 30 to 45 minutes' travel is generally accepted. Beyond that, the judge may reduce the alternation (e.g., alternating weeks but with longer journeys?).
• Previous involvement: if you were already participating in daily care, that is an asset. Keep evidence (schedules, emails).

Concretely, a parent who contests alternating residence will have to prove a practical impossibility or a danger to the child. For example, if one parent lives in Quimper and the other in Brest, the child would change schools at each change of residence: the judge might then opt for primary residence with one parent and weekend visiting rights. But within a 30 km radius, alternating residence has become the rule.

If you are currently in a situation of exclusive residence (child lives with mother, father has visiting rights), you can apply to change this arrangement. Apply to the family court judge (JAF) by petition (alone or with a lawyer). The procedure takes an average of 4 to 6 months. The cost? A specialist family law lawyer may assist you: budget €1,500 to €3,000 for a full procedure. But prior mediation is often cheaper and faster.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• Plan ahead from the separation: set a written framework with the other parent. A signed parental agreement (even without a lawyer) can be filed with the judge for approval (making it binding). This avoids a court case over a simple misunderstanding.
• Keep evidence of your involvement: school reports, photos, teacher attestations, records of extracurricular activities. The judge relies on facts, not words.
• Seek family mediation before any court action: it is free or low-cost (€25 to €50 per hour depending on the department) and can help you agree on practical arrangements. In Pont-l'Abbé, the Finistère family mediation centre offers sessions.
• Prepare a 'life plan' for the child: describe the daily routine at your home (rhythm, activities, proximity to school). Show that the alternating arrangement is viable. Example: 'Mathis will go to school in Pont-l'Abbé at his father's on even weeks, and to school in Audierne at his mother's on odd weeks' — this is not possible because it changes schools. You need to choose one school. The judge requires school stability.

Further Reading: Related Case Law and Developments

This decision follows in the wake of the Court of Cassation's case law (judgment of 12 January 2022, no. 21-11.789) which held that shared residence should not be refused solely because the parents disagree. Previously, some courts hesitated to impose alternating residence when one parent firmly opposed it. Today, the judge has investigative tools (social investigation, medico-psychological enquiry) to decide objectively.

However, a decision of the Rennes Court of Appeal (2024) refused alternating residence for a 4-year-old child, ruling that a child's ability to cope with alternation depends on age and maturity. The Nanterre court in 2025 is bolder: the 8-year-old child is considered capable of alternation. A possible confirmation by the Court of Appeal is awaited. To be continued.

In Practice: What to Do

FAQ

Can I ask for shared residence if the other parent refuses? Yes. You must apply to the family court judge (JAF) of the court of your domicile or that of the child. The judge will order an enquiry if necessary.

How long does it take to get a decision? About 6 months on average, sometimes less if you agree on the arrangements. A conciliation hearing can be set quickly.

What is the cost of proceedings? Without a lawyer, court fees are free. With a lawyer (recommended), expect between €1,500 and €3,000. Legal aid is available if your income is low.

Does the child have a say? Yes, if over 7 years old and of sufficient understanding. The judge may hear the child (Article 388-1 of the Civil Code). The child's opinion is taken into account but is not binding on the judge.

What happens if one parent does not comply with the alternating arrangement? You can ask the judge to impose a penalty payment (a sum of money per day of non-compliance) or to modify the residence. Failure to return a child is a criminal offence.

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 →