T and B, Re (Re Relocation and Schooling (Prohibited Steps Order)) [2024] EWFC 169 (B) (03 July 2024)

T and B, Re (Re Relocation and Schooling (Prohibited Steps Order)) [2024] EWFC 169 (B) (03 July 2024)

Applying the welfare checklist, the court found no evidence that the proposed move or change of schools would harm the children or be contrary to their best interests. The mother's proposals were well-considered and the father's objections lacked cogent evidence. The court also found no basis to depart from equal sharing of supervised contact costs.

Citation
[2024] EWFC 169 (B)
Parties
Applicant (father): RD; Respondent (mother): MG
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Private Children Act Proceedings (prohibited Steps Orders) / Interim Hearing Before Final Fact Finding Hearing
Outcome
Mother's application to relocate and change schools granted; father ordered to pay half of supervised contact costs.
Legal Topics
Relocation of Children, Schooling Decisions, Prohibited Steps Orders, Welfare Checklist, Costs in Children Proceedings
Family Law Relocation of Children Schooling Decisions Prohibited Steps Orders Welfare Checklist Costs in Children Proceedings

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RD

Applicant (father)

MG

Respondent (mother)

Procedural Posture

Private Children Act Proceedings (prohibited Steps Orders) / Interim Hearing Before Final Fact Finding Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the mother should be permitted to relocate with the children from East Grinstead to Esher and change their schools
  2. 2 Whether the father should be prohibited from cross-examining the mother due to domestic abuse allegations
  3. 3 How the costs of supervised contact should be apportioned

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the welfare checklist, the court found no evidence that the proposed move or change of schools would harm the children or be contrary to their best interests. The mother's proposals were well-considered and the father's objections lacked cogent evidence. The court also found no basis to depart from equal sharing of supervised contact costs.

Court Disposition

Mother's application to relocate and change schools granted; father ordered to pay half of supervised contact costs.

Orders

  • Permission granted for the mother to relocate with the children to Esher and enroll them in schools there.
  • Father to pay £553 to the mother within 21 days, being half the supervised contact costs.