ETS v BT (A Child) [2009] EWCA Civ 20 (28 January 2009)

ETS v BT (A Child) [2009] EWCA Civ 20 (28 January 2009)

The appeal was dismissed because the judge's findings of fact regarding the mother's motivation to undermine the shared residence order were open to him, and his discretionary decision that relocation was not in the child's best interests was not plainly wrong. The existence of a shared residence order is an important factor but not determinative; the welfare of the child remains paramount.

Citation
[2009] EWCA Civ 20
Parties
Appellant: ETS; Respondent: BT; Subject: T (A Child)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Permission to Appeal and Substantive Appeal From Lambeth County Court Order Refusing Internal Relocation
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Internal Relocation, Shared Residence Order, Children Act 1989, Welfare Principle, Variation of Residence Order
Family Law Child Law Internal Relocation Shared Residence Order Children Act 1989 Welfare Principle Variation of Residence Order

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ETS

Appellant

BT

Respondent

T (A Child)

Subject

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Permission to Appeal and Substantive Appeal From Lambeth County Court Order Refusing Internal Relocation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a shared residence order prevents internal relocation by one parent
  2. 2 What weight should be given to a shared residence order in internal relocation applications
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in refusing permission for the mother to relocate with the child within England

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the judge's findings of fact regarding the mother's motivation to undermine the shared residence order were open to him, and his discretionary decision that relocation was not in the child's best interests was not plainly wrong. The existence of a shared residence order is an important factor but not determinative; the welfare of the child remains paramount.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted
  • Appeal dismissed; order of Lambeth County Court refusing internal relocation stands