C (Children), Re [2014] EWFC B130 (26 February 2014)

C (Children), Re [2014] EWFC B130 (26 February 2014)

The application to relocate was refused because the court found the special guardians' motivation was substantially to exclude the birth family from the children's lives, the children’s welfare required ongoing direct contact with their birth family, and the proposed move would likely end all meaningful contact. The welfare of the children, as the paramount consideration, outweighed the arguments for relocation.

Citation
[2014] EWFC B130
Parties
Applicant/special Guardian (sg1): AC; Applicant/special Guardian (sg2): CC; Mother/respondent: GL (M); Father/respondent: PC (F); Maternal Grandmother/respondent: PaC (MGM); Local Authority: Sunderland City Council; Children's Guardian (cg): Gaynor Taskas
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Family Law Application for Permission to Remove Children From Jurisdiction (relocation) / Final Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Application for permission to remove the children from the jurisdiction (relocate to Australia) refused.
Legal Topics
Special Guardianship, Relocation of Children, Contact Arrangements, Welfare of the Child, Parental Responsibility
Family Law Child Law Special Guardianship Relocation of Children Contact Arrangements Welfare of the Child 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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AC

Applicant/special Guardian (sg1)

CC

Applicant/special Guardian (sg2)

GL (M)

Mother/respondent

PC (F)

Father/respondent

PaC (MGM)

Maternal Grandmother/respondent

Sunderland City Council

Local Authority

Gaynor Taskas

Children's Guardian (cg)

Procedural Posture

Family Law Application for Permission to Remove Children From Jurisdiction (relocation) / Final Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether special guardians should be granted permission to permanently relocate two children to Australia
  2. 2 Whether the proposed relocation is in the best interests of the children, considering their welfare as paramount
  3. 3 Whether the special guardians' motivation for relocation is genuine or intended to exclude the birth family

Ratio Decidendi

The application to relocate was refused because the court found the special guardians' motivation was substantially to exclude the birth family from the children's lives, the children’s welfare required ongoing direct contact with their birth family, and the proposed move would likely end all meaningful contact. The welfare of the children, as the paramount consideration, outweighed the arguments for relocation.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to remove the children from the jurisdiction (relocate to Australia) refused.

Orders

  • Transcript of judgment to be prepared.
  • Further submissions to be heard regarding future case management and contact arrangements.