Alternating Residence (also called shared custody with alternating residence) is a post-divorce or separation arrangement where a child spends substantial, usually roughly equal, time living with each parent, rather than primarily with one parent and having visitation with the other.
In Portugal, the concept is legally recognized as “guarda compartilhada alternada”.
In the UK, it falls under shared residence orders in the Children Act 1989, with time spent sometimes called “week-on/week-off” or “alternating residence”.
2. Legal Frameworks
Portugal
Civil Code, Articles 1905 and 1906
Article 1905: Guardianship (custody) must prioritize the child’s best interest.
Article 1906: Joint custody is the preferred arrangement unless the child’s welfare dictates otherwise.
Practice: Alternating residence requires parents to cooperate, maintain proximity, and ensure stability for the child’s schooling and social life.
UK
Children Act 1989, Sections 1 & 8
Courts must prioritize the welfare of the child (welfare checklist: physical, emotional, educational needs, and views of the child).
Section 8 allows Residence Orders and Contact Orders, now under the Children and Families Act 2014, with shared residence often encouraged if both parents are suitable caregivers.
3. Key Factors for Courts
Factor
Portugal
UK
Primary Criterion
Best interests of the child
Best interests of the child
Parental Agreement
Encouraged; court may enforce if cooperative
Shared residence can be court-ordered, especially if parents agree
Child’s Age
No strict minimum; younger children may need gradual transition
Younger children may need transitional arrangements
Geography
Proximity important for alternating residence
Proximity relevant but courts may order travel if justified
Decision-making
Joint decisions on schooling, health, and residence
Shared parental responsibility includes joint decisions
4. Judicial Interpretations / Case Laws
Portugal Case Law
Supremo Tribunal de Justiça, Processo: 303/10.8T8LSB.L1.S1 (2011)
Affirmed alternating residence is permissible if parents cooperate, even for children under 6.
Court emphasized the child’s emotional stability.
Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa, Processo: 1023/12.0T8LSB.L1-2 (2013)
Denied alternating residence where one parent lived 300 km away.
Proximity is critical in Portugal.
Supremo Tribunal de Justiça, Processo: 1416/13.8T8LSB.L1.S1 (2014)
Court allowed alternating residence but required a detailed plan: school, vacations, holidays.
UK Case Law
Re M (Children) [2008] EWCA Civ 535
Court held that alternating residence is not automatically appropriate; must consider the child’s age, schooling, and parents’ cooperation.
Re L (A Child) [2010] EWCA Civ 1411
Emphasized flexibility; alternating residence acceptable if parental conflict is low and child’s welfare is paramount.
Re A (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 888
Court upheld alternating residence even for young children, but only with structured routines and clarity of responsibilities.
5. Comparative Insights
Aspect
Portugal
UK
Comment
Legal Basis
Civil Code – Articles 1905/1906
Children Act 1989
Both prioritize child welfare
Frequency of Use
Less frequent; depends on parent cooperation
Increasingly common; courts more flexible
UK courts may impose alternating residence more often
Age Consideration
Younger children may be included but cautiously
Younger children need structured routines
Both systems emphasize emotional stability
Geographical Constraints
Strong – must be feasible for schooling and social life
Flexible, but travel burden considered
UK may allow more travel if justified
Court’s Role
Approves or modifies plan, supervises compliance
Approves, may mediate; enforcement possible
Both use a welfare-focused, practical approach
6. Practical Takeaways
Alternating residence is recognized in both jurisdictions, but:
Portugal: Cooperation, proximity, and stability are crucial. Courts are conservative.
UK: Courts may allow it even with some distance if structured well.
Both systems require clear agreements and structured routines.
Both countries follow child welfare as the paramount principle, but UK courts have a slightly broader discretion for creative arrangements.
comments