Which means that the Court just tries to refrain from intervening in children´s matters whenever possible permitting the parents to reach their own agreement. The Court´s intervention is restricted to the minimum possible (= principio de intervención minima). Explanation below:

www.cilexlawschool.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/UQ18-Th...
The no order principle
Under s1(5) CA 1989, a court should not make an order in children proceedings unless doing so would be better for the child than making no order at all. The court’s starting point is, therefore, to be non-interventionist wherever possible. This is because arrangements in relation to children tend to work best where the parties have reached their own agreement rather than having arrangements imposed on them by the court. No order should be made in response to any application under CA 1989 unless making the order is better for the child than not making it.
This does not mean that there is a presumption in favour of making no order. In Re G (Children) [2006] the Court of Appeal held that s1(5) creates no presumption either for or against making an order. The section merely demands of the court that it asks itself the question whether to make an order would be better for a child than making no order at all. In that case, the judge felt it provided security for the mother to have an order recording where the child should live in case the father removed the child.