C (Children), Re [2014] EWFC B131 (17 June 2014)

C (Children), Re [2014] EWFC B131 (17 June 2014)

The court found that the special guardians' motivation for the proposed move was at least in part to distance the children from their birth family and restrict contact, that the special guardians were unlikely to promote contact if relocated, and that enforcement of contact would be impractical if the move occurred....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] EWFC B131
Parties
Applicant (mother): M; Respondent (father): F; Respondent (maternal Grandmother): MGM; Respondent (special Guardian): SG1; Respondent (special Guardian): SG2; Children's Guardian: Children's Guardian (CG), Gaynor Taskas
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Private Law Children Proceedings / Final Judgment on Application for Prohibited Steps Order (internal Relocation)
Outcome
Prohibited steps order granted; relocation prevented; detailed contact arrangements ordered.
Legal Topics
Special Guardianship Orders, Prohibited Steps Orders, Internal Relocation, Child Arrangements, Contact With Birth Family, Parental Responsibility
Family Law Child Law Special Guardianship Orders Prohibited Steps Orders Internal Relocation Child Arrangements Contact With Birth Family Parental Responsibility

Source-derived case record

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M

Applicant (mother)

F

Respondent (father)

MGM

Respondent (maternal Grandmother)

SG1

Respondent (special Guardian)

SG2

Respondent (special Guardian)

Children's Guardian (CG), Gaynor Taskas

Children's Guardian

Procedural Posture

Private Law Children Proceedings / Final Judgment on Application for Prohibited Steps Order (internal Relocation)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant a prohibited steps order preventing special guardians from relocating children from Sunderland area to Northampton
  2. 2 Appropriate arrangements for contact between children and birth family
  3. 3 Whether special guardianship orders remain appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the special guardians' motivation for the proposed move was at least in part to distance the children from their birth family and restrict contact, that the special guardians were unlikely to promote contact if relocated, and that enforcement of contact would be impractical if the move occurred. The boys' welfare, including their emotional needs and beneficial relationships with the birth family, would be best served by preventing the move. The risk of breakdown in contact and the special guardians' ambivalence about continuing care if the move was refused were outweighed by the need to preserve the children's relationships and welfare. Accordingly, a prohibited steps...

Court Disposition

Prohibited steps order granted; relocation prevented; detailed contact arrangements ordered.

Orders

  • Prohibited steps order prohibiting removal of the children from Sunderland, South Tyneside, North Tyneside, Newcastle upon Tyne, Gateshead, County Durham (west of A68), Hartlepool, Stockton, Darlington, and Middlesbrough.
  • Child arrangements order for contact: one week at Christmas, one week at Easter, two weeks in summer holidays, and weekend contact in January, February, May, June, September, October, and November, with specified arrangements for half terms.