ETS v BT (A Child)

ETS v BT (A Child)

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge's findings of fact—particularly regarding the mother's motivation to undermine the shared residence order—were open to him and justified refusal of internal relocation. The existence of a shared residence order does not bar relocation, but on these facts, the judge's welfare assessment was not plainly wrong and should not be disturbed.

Parties
Appellant: ETS; Respondent: BT; Subject: T (A Child)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (family Law) / Appeal From Lambeth County Court Decision Refusing Internal Relocation by Parent With Shared Residence Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Residence Orders, Internal Relocation, Shared Residence, Welfare of the Child
Family Law Child Law Residence Orders Internal Relocation Shared Residence Welfare of the Child

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

Parties

ETS

Appellant

BT

Respondent

T (A Child)

Subject

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (family Law) / Appeal From Lambeth County Court Decision Refusing Internal Relocation by Parent With Shared Residence Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a shared residence order prevents internal relocation by one parent
  2. 2 What principles govern internal relocation applications where a shared residence order exists
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in refusing the mother's application to relocate with the child within England

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge's findings of fact—particularly regarding the mother's motivation to undermine the shared residence order—were open to him and justified refusal of internal relocation. The existence of a shared residence order does not bar relocation, but on these facts, the judge's welfare assessment was not plainly wrong and should not be disturbed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Mother's application to relocate with the child refused
  • Existing shared residence order and contact arrangements as varied by the trial judge to remain in force