E (Relocation - choice between various options within and without the jurisdiction) [2022] EWFC B22 (04 October 2022)

E (Relocation - choice between various options within and without the jurisdiction) [2022] EWFC B22 (04 October 2022)

The application to relocate was refused because the welfare of the child, E, is best served by remaining in the northwest of England where she can maintain regular, direct contact with both parents. The mother's proposals for relocation were found to be uncertain regarding employment, housing, and sustaining contact, and the risk to the child's relationship with the father was too great. The court accepted the Cafcass officer's recommendation that relocation would not be in the child's best interests.

Citation
[2022] EWFC B22
Parties
Applicant Mother: AB; Respondent Father: CD
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Children Act 1989 Proceedings (relocation and Contact) / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing
Outcome
Application to relocate refused
Legal Topics
Relocation of Child, Prohibited Steps Order, Welfare Checklist, Contact Arrangements, Parental Responsibility
Family Law Child Law Relocation of Child Prohibited Steps Order Welfare Checklist Contact Arrangements Parental Responsibility

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AB

Applicant Mother

CD

Respondent Father

Procedural Posture

Children Act 1989 Proceedings (relocation and Contact) / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant mother should be permitted to relocate with the child outside the jurisdiction (to Tenerife or Scotland)
  2. 2 Whether the welfare of the child is best served by remaining in the northwest of England
  3. 3 Impact of relocation on the child's relationship with the respondent father

Ratio Decidendi

The application to relocate was refused because the welfare of the child, E, is best served by remaining in the northwest of England where she can maintain regular, direct contact with both parents. The mother's proposals for relocation were found to be uncertain regarding employment, housing, and sustaining contact, and the risk to the child's relationship with the father was too great. The court accepted the Cafcass officer's recommendation that relocation would not be in the child's best interests.

Court Disposition

Application to relocate refused

Orders

  • The applicant mother's application to relocate with the child to Tenerife or Scotland is refused.
  • The child is to remain residing with the mother in the northwest of England.